Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

Who decides what opinion is "stupid"? That's some very slippery slope there and you know it.

I mean, the demon semen lady had a lot of stupid opinions, for example, so I'm fine with saying that's a stupid opinion and not remotely worried about any slippery slopes at all.

This is a weird take. Skepticism is reactionary by nature. It's almost like saying the water is wet. Besides, it does not invalidate said skepticism either.

Water isn't wet, though. The things water touches are wet.

[Gaidax]

Well, until it was "Biden decides" then you're arguing an irrelevant point. You do know the COVID issues you're discussing did not happen in the last four years, right? There's a lot of opinions in the Trump thread, such as "take ivermectin" or "huff bleach" there you could discuss.

We are having a polite discussion, if you wish to apply for a moderator position there is a thread for that too.

The core of the discussion is state of the mainstream media and the distrust of it by the voters which is very relevant to the tread, after all that's why Biden and Harris are on their way out of the White House soon enough.

This all is a part of the puzzle. You could say that conversation was steered in a bit off road direction, but you'd ought call out people who actually started going down this path, which is not me.

[Breccia]

The core of the discussion is state of the mainstream media

The "mainstream media" did not lie about the origin of COVID, which the post you're responding to claimed, and what you're now...kind of trying to argue. Everything you've said since has been irrelevant. And no, it hasn't been polite, you're defending Trump supporters who have no skills and no evidence just being negative because they don't trust even Trump's government. That's not polite, that's anarchy.

Could I ask you politely to bring the discussion back to Biden? Biden is not the mainstream media, and had nothing to do with Trump's bungled response to COVID, and they certainly didn't make up wild rumors and hide behind "well who's opinion is stupid? that's a slippery slope!"

[Gaidax]

I mean, the demon semen lady had a lot of stupid opinions, for example, so I'm fine with saying that's a stupid opinion and not remotely worried about any slippery slopes at all.

You're intentionally steering this into crazy area, but we're talking about quite sane opinions here, such as that maybe some statements made on the mainstream media are not quite up to snuff and it's okay to question them.

Water isn't wet, though. The things water touches are wet.

Is this supposed to be an answer to the statements of:

• Skepticism is reactionary by nature.
• Being reactionary does not invalidate skepticism.

I'm sorry, but I must have missed a beat there?

- - - Updated - - -

The "mainstream media" did not lie about the origin of COVID, which the post you're responding to claimed, and what you're now...kind of trying to argue. Everything you've said since has been irrelevant. And no, it hasn't been polite, you're defending Trump supporters who have no skills and no evidence just being negative because they don't trust even Trump's government. That's not polite, that's anarchy.

Could I ask you politely to bring the discussion back to Biden? Biden is not the mainstream media, and had nothing to do with Trump's bungled response to COVID, and they certainly didn't make up wild rumors and hide behind "well who's opinion is stupid? that's a slippery slope!"

First of all, don't shadowbox me and then respond to whatever delusions you conjured about me in your head.

Secondly the post I responded to was: The notion that scientists must know everything and that if we learn new things later scientists were bad or dishonest for not knowing it earlier is truly one of the weirdest fucking concepts to gain significant traction, lately. I don't fucking get it at all and it seems to indicate to me a lack of critical thinking ability and a misunderstanding of how linear time works.

Which is, as Leon would say, "Concerning..."

Try to at least be factually correct when you try to claim claims of what I said or did.

[Breccia]

First of all, (irrelevant text snipped)

"First of all", @Endus had a valid point when responding to the objectively false "they lied". You decided to respond by going in an irrelevant direction, somehow blaming the mainstream media for Trump supporters claiming Trump's government was lying to them based on no evidence and on skills, and I decided to repeatedly call you out on it.

Second of all, not a word of your response was about Biden. And I'm calling you out on that again. The Trump thread is half a click away, dude.

[Endus]

Again, you're bending the bar too far.

The problem is not the "scientists", the problem is that you had a year or two in the media where any sort of alternative, non-dogmatic thought was forbidden. The "scientists" were hardly a hive mind back then, it's just some scientists got a lot more platform than the others.

There were plenty of educated professionals who were skeptic about various measures or statements - they got drowned out and even chased off for even questioning or deviating from the "dogma".

This is just a lie.

Unfounded, misinformed opinions that weren't based on anything concrete were dismissed, on the basis that they were (and remain till today) complete bullshit only idiots would fall for.

There was no such "forbiddance". That's a nonsensical conspiracy theory you've made up, based on nothing but a completely unwarranted sense of persecution. It's all in your head.

It's nothing to do with some weird ladies worshipping imagine friend in the sky or underground claiming claims. For example, the hastily tested vaccines that got pushed out came with overly flowery estimations of their safety, where now we know that in fact heart-related conditions can happen with otherwise healthy recipients of the vaccines.

This? This is intentionally malicious anti-vaxxer horsecock.

The vaccines got pushed out quickly because there was an imminent need. They were safe.

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/co...y/summary.html

Short form; there were adverse side effects 0.045% of the time. Serious side effects only 0.011% of the time.

Let's compare to another major vaccine, the MMR vaccine. The one Wakefield made up his anti-vaxx bullshit paper about; https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1071313/

I'll just quote it directly; "The MMR vaccine has some side effects. For example, about 1 in 6 children develop a fever 7 to 12 days after immunization, and about 1 in 3,000 develop febrile seizures.13 Some parents think that MMR is unsafe because it has some adverse effects, but this is not the case. These side effects, most of which are benign, are acknowledged by members of the medical profession. The benefits of MMR far outweigh the risks of these recognized side effects. The vaccine has an excellent safety record. Hundreds of millions of children have safely received the vaccine worldwide."

1 in 6 is far higher than the non-serious rate for the COVID vaccines, and 1 in 3000 is about 0.03%, so three times more likely for serious side effects than the COVID vaccines.

You're pushing anti-vaxx conspiracy bullshit. If you can't tell that's what you're pushing, that's on you for not knowing what the fuck you're talking about and not checking your incredibly questionable sources.

Literally all you've got is anti-vaxx bullshit. You're either pushing the con yourself knowing it's a con, or you're gullible enough to be someone else's dancing monkey.

- - - Updated - - -

Skepticism is literally the core tenant of the scientific method. Question everything is literally THE underlying principle of science.

Hence, I find this sentence wild. This is precisely what I'm talking about, the moment you softban the plurality of thought - you get back to the Middle Ages. Skepticism of the dogmatic thinking is literally the driver of progress, and during those two years there was a regression in that.

Step one of skepticism is checking the results, and attempting to confirm them yourself.

If you're just disputing results without any countervailing data to contradict those results, you're not engaging in proper skepticism, you're just engaging in science denialism. The same category of person as falt-earthers and young-Earth Creationists. Specifically, anti-vaxxer denialism, in this case. Those are not "skeptic" movements.

- - - Updated - - -

We are having a polite discussion . . .

Pushing science denialism and anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories means this is not a polite discussion. You've made it impolite, by introducing bad-faith bullshit intended to derail proper discussion and present a determinably false image of what actually happened.

You're lying to our faces. If you can't see how that's "not polite", that's on you.

[NED funded]

After the vaccines came out there was no justification to keep up the lockdowns. But republicans have become antivaxx these days so it doesnt matter

[postman1782]

Final nail in the coffin for the Democratic party as we know it? It appears they lied to us about most of the major issues regarding COVID's origins, mitigation strategies, etc.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...ndemic-report/

Literally nothing true in the report.

[Edge-]

Literally nothing true in the report.

There have been so many final nails I'm wondering if the nails aren't working and they need to swap to screws.

[Belize]

There have been so many final nails I'm wondering if the nails aren't working and they need to swap to screws.

Good news, the horse has been beaten so much there's a decent amount of glue available to be used

[Anastacy]

Good news, the horse has been beaten so much there's a decent amount of glue available to be used

And with no horses remaining, there's plenty of leftover Ivermectin.

[PhaelixWW]

Dems just touching any last bit of credibility as they leave, I suppose.

Before you say "but Trump," realize the GOP aren't the ones pretending to have the moral high ground.

I confess, "joke's on you; we can't lose any credibility because we didn't have any to begin with" is an admission I didn't expect to see coming from the conservative crowd.

Is this that "5D chess" I keep hearing about?

[Doomcookie]

We are having a polite discussion, if you wish to apply for a moderator position there is a thread for that too.

The core of the discussion is state of the mainstream media and the distrust of it by the voters which is very relevant to the tread, after all that's why Biden and Harris are on their way out of the White House soon enough.

This all is a part of the puzzle. You could say that conversation was steered in a bit off road direction, but you'd ought call out people who actually started going down this path, which is not me.

These are the same people who ignored evidence for years, and still think Trump won the 2020 election.

They don't want evidence, nor do they want an honest discussion. They are ignorant by choice.

[Gaidax]

These are the same people who ignored evidence for years, and still think Trump won the 2020 election.

They don't want evidence, nor do they want an honest discussion. They are ignorant by choice.

Don't you think you're painting things with an awfully thick brush there?

[PosPosPos]

Don't you think you're painting things with an awfully thick brush there?

Only if there's some universal law stating there can't be more than x number of evil people existing out there, like half a big nation can't be a basket of deplorables especially when you belong in it.

[Doomcookie]

Don't you think you're painting things with an awfully thick brush there?

Nope, not really. Skepticism is fine, but skepticism in the face of evidence is either pure ignorance, or an act of actual malice. It's maintaining faith over evidence.

These are the same people who still lie and say Trump won the 2020 election. These are the same people who lied and said the vaccines were dangerous. These are the same people who support a rapist. You happen to be one of them.

Skepticism should go away with the introduction of evidence.

[NED funded]

The lockdowns and social distancing were pretty major failures of public health policy and of experts. And it became parricularly egregious when its more ardent supporters were pretty timid about BLM riots that went against every policy implemented back then. Once the vaccine was available it became indeffensible.

So, I get why people dont trust experts wrt COVID but the same people are antivaxx so their opinions on anything is irrelevant

[PhaelixWW]

The lockdowns and social distancing were pretty major failures of public health policy and of experts.

This is a load of BS.

[Shadowferal]

Don't you think you're painting things with an awfully thick brush there?

It sticks well.

[NED funded]

This is a load of BS.

The lockdowns made sense at the time but they lasted longer than they should have. Once vaccines were rolling out it should have ended there. But again, it was experts that brought us vaccines and Ill be damned if I pretend I understand how mRNA vaccines work so my trust on experts is pretty high.