What's actually being censored: misinformation or the truth?

[mr_engineer]

https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/world/us-vaccinated-people-now-make-majority-of-covid-deaths-united-states-coronavirus-cases-2022-11-24-826210

Here's another one. 'Vaccinated deaths make the majority of COVID deaths'. 

And, here's Joe Biden calling this a 'pandemic of the unvaccinated'. In 2021. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/09/remarks-by-president-biden-on-fighting-the-covid-19-pandemic-3/

[Consept]

Just now, mr_engineer said:

@Consept My point is that this idea that governments are going to come together and form a world-government with values of 'sustainability' - this idea itself was said to be 'false'. And now, it's happening. 

The fact-checkers claimed a whole bunch of stuff. I only need one counter-example to show you a reason you should doubt what they're saying. 

Read the fact check you provided, its about a post that was proved to be quite clearly false, linked to a false website etc. Theyre not talking about the idea that an organisation can exist that talks about sustainability, its literally about the facebook post. So if the fact checkers are claiming a whole bunch of false information, then just link one, this is the crux of your whole argument so i dont know why you sent me such a terrible example

[mr_engineer]

6 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/world/us-vaccinated-people-now-make-majority-of-covid-deaths-united-states-coronavirus-cases-2022-11-24-826210

Here's another one. 'Vaccinated deaths make the majority of COVID deaths'. 

And, here's Joe Biden calling this a 'pandemic of the unvaccinated'. In 2021. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/09/remarks-by-president-biden-on-fighting-the-covid-19-pandemic-3/

And, about the fact-checkers - I don't think I need to give you a link of the hordes of 'fact-checkers' claiming that 'vaccines are safe and effective'. Maybe they're safe, but they sure as hell aren't effective, if the majority of COVID-deaths are of the vaccinated!! 

[Consept]

3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/world/us-vaccinated-people-now-make-majority-of-covid-deaths-united-states-coronavirus-cases-2022-11-24-826210

Here's another one. 'Vaccinated deaths make the majority of COVID deaths'. 

And, here's Joe Biden calling this a 'pandemic of the unvaccinated'. In 2021. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/09/remarks-by-president-biden-on-fighting-the-covid-19-pandemic-3/

Bro, this is ridiculous, the first one is just a random article from the India TV news website, thats not a fact check site. Just to make sure you understand, youre supposed to present an article from a fact check site, snopes or full fact something like that and show where they proved something wrong and it was later revealed they were wrong and most likely paid off by the government. 

All these links are just proving how necessary fact checking actually is. Also notice your double standard where fact check sites need to be right 100% of the time, if theyre not then we cant trust them but alt-media can be biased, wrong a lot of the time etc but we can trust them 

[mr_engineer]

@Consept Alt-media aren't 'fact-checkers'. They're not on a crusade to prove themselves to be 'absolutely true'. 

I'm not saying we can trust alt-media. Their job doesn't require them to be trustworthy!! They just have to disprove what the mainstream-media is saying so that the collective gets closer to the truth. 

[Consept]

8 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

if the majority of COVID-deaths are of the vaccinated!! 

Also this take is just wrong, more deaths will be of vaccinated people because more people are vaccinated but the death rate between unvaccinated and vaccinated is very different. Unvaccinated peoples death rate is much higher, you can find out more about that here - https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

Edited November 26, 2022 by Consept

[Consept]

1 minute ago, mr_engineer said:

Alt-media aren't 'fact-checkers'. They're not on a crusade to prove themselves to be 'absolutely true'. 

I'm not saying we can trust alt-media. Their job doesn't require them to be trustworthy!! They just have to disprove what the mainstream-media is saying so that the collective gets closer to the truth. 

So if we cant trust them and they have no regulations and are clearly biased by their own admission, how will that help us get closer to the truth, if anything it will make the truth more murky. 

But even you seem to have trouble discerning what is true and whats not judging by the examples youve provided, so obviously alt-media is not really helping here. 

[mr_engineer]

3 minutes ago, Consept said:

Also this take is just wrong, more deaths will be of vaccinated people because more people are vaccinated but the death rate between unvaccinated and vaccinated is much very different. Unvaccinated peoples death rate is much higher, you can find out more about that here - https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

The job of the vaccines was to save lives. And they aren't doing that, if the actual number of vaccinated COVID-deaths is greater than the actual number of unvaccinated COVID-deaths. 

What you're saying is just a talking-point for vaccine-companies. They'll measure whatever number makes them look good. 

3 minutes ago, Consept said:

So if we cant trust them and they have no regulations and are clearly biased by their own admission, how will that help us get closer to the truth, if anything it will make the truth more murky. 

The objective truth is an amalgamation/integration of a lot of biased perspectives. 

The alt-media highlights the biases of the mainstream-media, which is something the mainstream-media does not do. First of all. Then, it gives its own perspective, it's own data. And finally, it has an explanation for why it's being censored. This is how it integrates everything that's going on and adds to it. Is it biased?! Yes. But, it does take us closer to the objective truth. 

[John Paul]

44 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

The job of the alt-media is to say what the mainstream-media isn't saying. It's not to 'be unbiased' and 'give all the facts'. These expectations only get placed on the mouthpieces of the governments. 

No. The job of the alt media is to make money.

[Consept]

12 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

The job of the vaccines was to save lives. And they aren't doing that, if the actual number of vaccinated COVID-deaths is greater than the actual number of unvaccinated COVID-deaths. 

What you're saying is just a talking-point for vaccine-companies. They'll measure whatever number makes them look good. 

This is so intellectually lazy, the death rate is definitely the most important metric. If there are 100 people and 90 get vaccinated, let's say 10 of the vaccinated people die but only 5 of the unvaccinated die, that means 50% of unvaccinated people are going to die, whereas only 9% vaccinated people will die, obviously you will have a better chance of you're vaccinated. 

Do you see how you claim others are doing what you're actually doing, you've changed how you look at the numbers to give make your point of view correct, whilst also claiming other people are doing that. 

You claim to be one of the 'smarter' people that can discern information  for himself but you seem to have very strong bias' that I would not associate with an open mind. 

13 minutes ago, John Paul said:

No. The job of the alt media is to make money.

Based 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, mr_engineer said:

The job of the alt-media is to say what the mainstream-media isn't saying.

This reactionary stance won't hold water.

The job of any media should be help people stay informed and make sense of the world events. People who listen to alt-media often end up having a poorer sense of events than those who listen to mainstream media. Which means alt-media is doing a worse job than mainstream media.

Many people who hate on mainstream media don't watch it at all, instead only consuming alt-media. Which makes them worse informed than those who only watch mainstream media.

This whole demonization of mainstream media is really unintelligent and transparently self-serving for alt-media.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Leo Gura

[mr_engineer]

5 minutes ago, Consept said:

This is so intellectually lazy, the death rate is definitely the most important metric. If there are 100 people and 90 get vaccinated, let's say 10 of the vaccinated people die but only 5 of the unvaccinated die, that means 50% of unvaccinated people are going to die, whereas only 9% vaccinated people will die, obviously you will have a better chance of you're vaccinated. 

Do you see how you claim others are doing what you're actually doing, you've changed how you look at the numbers to give make your point of view correct, whilst also claiming other people are doing that. 

You claim to be one of the 'smarter' people that can discern information  for himself but you seem to have very strong bias' that I would not associate with an open mind. 

No, it's a reductionistic extrapolation of the numbers, assuming that the vaxes do work and are safe and effective. There is no way to know what would've happened if those 90% were not vaccinated!! 

The real numbers say that the jabbed died in greater numbers than the unjabbed. 

[Consept]

3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

No, it's a reductionistic extrapolation of the numbers, assuming that the vaxes do work and are safe and effective. There is no way to know what would've happened if those 90% were not vaccinated!! 

The real numbers say that the jabbed died in greater numbers than the unjabbed. 

OK so youre dismissing the death rate, do you think that has no bearing on assessing how effective a treatment is? 

So if there were 100 people and 90 wore seatbelts but 10 didnt and out of the 10, 5 died and out of the 90, 10 died, you would say, following your logic that theres no way to know what wouldve happened to the 90 if they didnt wear seatbelts, therefore seatbelts are not effective because more people died wearing them? Does this make sense to you?

[mr_engineer]

@Consept I'm not debating whether vaccination was a good idea or not. I'm debating the claim that 'vaccines are safe and effective'. This is the counter-example to the claim. 

And seatbelts aren't supposed to be a magic pill. Vaccines are. So, there's that. And, they didn't save the lives of those who died. And that's a bigger number than the unjabbed deaths. 

[Consept]

3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

@Consept I'm not debating whether vaccination was a good idea or not. I'm debating the claim that 'vaccines are safe and effective'. This is the counter-example to the claim. 

And seatbelts aren't supposed to be a magic pill. Vaccines are. So, there's that. And, they didn't save the lives of those who died. And that's a bigger number than the unjabbed deaths. 

OK we cant go any further theres too much bias here, thanks for the convo though 

[mr_engineer]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The job of any media should be help people stay informed and make sense of the world events. People who listen to alt-media often end up having a poorer sense of events than those who listen to mainstream media. Which means alt-media is doing a worse job than mainstream media.

People use different medias for different reasons. 

You have a perception of what any media's job should be. And, for all I know, you're probably right about that! I'm not denying that. What I am saying, though, is my perception of what the alt-media is doing and why it's working. What their job actually is, what they actually get paid to do, could be very different from your idea of 'what their job should be'. 

You have a bias towards truth, as you openly admit in your videos. The thing is - most people don't. This is why you think that any media's job should be to be objective and unbiased. 

Here is my metaphysical question for you - What is 'objective truth'? Is it an absence of bias? Or is it an integration of bias? Because the reality of all worldviews is that they will be biased towards the survival-agenda of the individual holding that worldview. Practically, in my opinion, bias will always exist. 

What is our best practical chance to get to objective truth, in your opinion? 

Edited November 27, 2022 by mr_engineer

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

People use different medias for different reasons. 

You have a perception of what any media's job should be. And, for all I know, you're probably right about that! I'm not denying that. What I am saying, though, is my perception of what the alt-media is doing and why it's working. What their job actually is, what they actually get paid to do, could be very different from your idea of 'what their job should be'. 

You have a bias towards truth, as you openly admit in your videos. The thing is - most people don't. This is why you think that any media's job should be to be objective and unbiased. 

Here is my metaphysical question for you - What is 'objective truth'? Is it an absence of bias? Or is it an integration of bias? Because the reality of all worldviews is that they will be biased towards the survival-agenda of the individual holding that worldview. Practically, in my opinion, bias will always exist. 

What is our best practical chance to get to objective truth, in your opinion? 

Please cut the BS.

The simple fact is that people who watch lots of alt-media end up less informed and more deceived about reality than otherwise.

So your claims of bias are spurious. Bias is precisely what makes alt-media so dangerous. The bias found in alt-media makes CNN look like angels.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Please cut the BS.

The simple fact is that people who watch lots of alt-media end up less informed and more deceived about reality than otherwise.

So your claims of bias are spurious. Bias is precisely what makes alt-media so dangerous. The bias found in alt-media makes CNN look like angels.

Will there ever be a way to stop the growing amount of alt-media in the future or are we doomed to living with it like a metastasizing cancer until it causes the whole world to tear apart?

Edited November 27, 2022 by Hardkill

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura  You know what, maybe this push back from OP, is to get you to make a video aboht the alt media at some point. Maybe.

@mr_engineer  What is your intent in this thread? To persuade and convince users of your point of view that alt media is better? Or to manipulate and exploit those who are confused or half half with mainstream media to go even more alt media?

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Will there ever be a way to stop the growing amount of alt-media in the future or are we doomed to living with it like a metastasizing cancer until it causes the whole world to tear apart?

I think lots of people have been fooled by alt-media as it was a new thing. But now the excesses of alt-media are becoming well-known, so people will be less fooled by it in the future.

In the end, having more voices is a good thing, things just need to settle down. This is all part of expanding democracy.

Don't demonize alt-media, don't demonize mainstream media. There is good and bad to be found in both. They supplement each other.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Leo Gura