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

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

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.

I see. 

So, we just have to be more patience with all of this working itself out in the future.

[Leo Gura]

20 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

I see. 

So, we just have to be more patience with all of this working itself out in the future.

Well, that is how EVERY social problem is ultimately solved.

It's merely a question of whether you will live long enough to see it.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Leo Gura

[mr_engineer]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

What is your intent in this thread? To persuade and convince users of your point of view that alt media is better? 

I'm telling people why alt-media has the demand it does. 

3 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

Or to manipulate and exploit those who are confused or half half with mainstream media to go even more alt media?

You know what?! Come join my cult!! Which is where I manipulate people to go even more alt-media. You got me. 

You guys really like to make everything personal, don't you?! 

[Consept]

I think overall this thread actually shows the dangers of alt-media as it is. There is so much certainty whilst factually being wrong and the inflexibility of thought, these things are precisely what happens when certain alt-media is consumed as fact. Having said that, the same thing can happen with mainstream media, its just that theres more safeguards and regulation. Similarly alt-media can be a great tool, I just think as it is there are too many bad actors and people basically using it to get rich and famous with certain talking points, this isnt necessarily a problem in of itself but i think people need to and will get better at discerning the information. Its extremely new technology and these are all growing pains of something that hanges how we fundamentally consume information   

[mr_engineer]

@Consept

If the number of jabbed people dying is greater than the number of unjabbed people dying, it is disingenuous to say that 'it's a pandemic of the unvaccinated'. We see the numbers. 

And you can't linearly extrapolate that '50% of the unvaccinated died. So, if we magically remove the vaccine from the bodies of the vaccinated, 50% of those people would die'. To prove that, you would have to actually invent a technology to 'unvaccinate' someone who's vaccinated!! You can't do that, so you can't prove your linear extrapolation. 

There are a lot of other factors at play than just your vaccination-status. But, if you're a vaccine-company, you are self-biased enough to assume God-status, that you have the God-given right to decide whether people live or they die. Which you don't. 

And, don't forget the real numbers. The number of people who took the vaccine died in greater numbers than those who didn't. 

Edited November 27, 2022 by mr_engineer

[Consept]

48 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

@Consept

If the number of jabbed people dying is greater than the number of unjabbed people dying, it is disingenuous to say that 'it's a pandemic of the unvaccinated'. We see the numbers. 

And you can't linearly extrapolate that '50% of the unvaccinated died. So, if we magically remove the vaccine from the bodies of the vaccinated, 50% of those people would die'. To prove that, you would have to actually invent a technology to 'unvaccinate' someone who's vaccinated!! You can't do that, so you can't prove your linear extrapolation. 

There are a lot of other factors at play than just your vaccination-status. But, if you're a vaccine-company, you are self-biased enough to assume God-status, that you have the God-given right to decide whether people live or they die. Which you don't. 

And, don't forget the real numbers. The number of people who took the vaccine died in greater numbers than those who didn't. 

Can you accept that death rate % of vaccinated vs unvaccinated would be a more accurate metric than just how many people died overall in terms of how effective a vaccine is? 

Please just answer yes or no as you often obfuscate with your answers, I just want to know clearly if this is the claim youre making

[mr_engineer]

@Consept

No, it is not a more accurate metric than number of deaths. 

You can make a claim for vaccination. But, this doesn't change the fact that people died even though vaccination happened. And more people than those unvaccinated. 

If you want to prove that they're 'safe and effective', unvaccinate a sizeable chunk of the vaccinated and then let's look at the death-rates. Demographics behave differently at different scales. 

[Consept]

38 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

@Consept

No, it is not a more accurate metric than number of deaths. 

You can make a claim for vaccination. But, this doesn't change the fact that people died even though vaccination happened. And more people than those unvaccinated. 

If you want to prove that they're 'safe and effective', unvaccinate a sizeable chunk of the vaccinated and then let's look at the death-rates. Demographics behave differently at different scales. 

I think this is your worst take, you do realise this is how any efficacy has to be tested for anything. Literally nothing would be classed as effective using your chosen metrics. 

More people die in crashes that wear seatbelts than crashes with people that dont wear seatbelts, does that make seatbelts ineffective?

[mr_engineer]

8 minutes ago, Consept said:

I think this is your worst take, you do realise this is how any efficacy has to be tested for anything. Literally nothing would be classed as effective using your chosen metrics. 

More people die in crashes that wear seatbelts than crashes with people that dont wear seatbelts, does that make seatbelts ineffective?

Yupp. Not perfectly effective, not something to be held dogmatically. 

If you're going to mandate something, you'd better make it perfect. Or else, it's an abuse of power. 

Another point is that once you put on a seatbelt, you can remove it. This isn't the case with the vax. It infringes on our body-sovereignty. It's a human rights violation. 

Edited November 27, 2022 by mr_engineer

[Consept]

31 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Yupp. Not perfectly effective, not something to be held dogmatically. 

If you're going to mandate something, you'd better make it perfect. Or else, it's an abuse of power. 

Another point is that once you put on a seatbelt, you can remove it. This isn't the case with the vax. It infringes on our body-sovereignty. It's a human rights violation. 

You do realise theres literally no innovation thats completely perfect, like its literally impossible. So by your logic every law is an abuse of power. 

Also the arguments youre proposing against the vaccine are pretty much exactly the arguments that those who didnt want the seatbelt law were arguing as well. 

But anyway you seem to be someone who is interested in growth as youre on this forum so i would urge to really question the way you look at information. Your current method is literally unworkable, it requires a lot of mental gymnastics and incredible jumps in logic. There is literally nothing to be gained for anyone debating you so it is a good test for us not to be drawn into the superiority of feeling right. On your side though consider that maybe other people on this forum have good perspectives that you shouldnt just outright dismiss and enforce your opinion upon. 

[mr_engineer]

31 minutes ago, Consept said:

You do realise theres literally no innovation thats completely perfect, like its literally impossible. So by your logic every law is an abuse of power. 

It would not be an abuse of power if the regulators were willing to admit to mistakes when they made them. And they could repair the damage they do to people. 

The problem with irreversible damage is that it disincentivizes regulators to admit to their mistakes. And, they have to keep doubling down on their abuses of power. This is why, rolling back mandates either never happens or is done very, very reluctantly. 

When you mandate a vaccine, a pharmaceutical, that's developed in a hurry, by people who have paid the largest criminal fine in US history (this is why you need the alt-media, to tell you important stuff like this that the mainstream-media omits), who also get a liability-waiver in their 'emergency-rollout', I'm sorry but you're playing with fire. It's an unacceptable risk. 

31 minutes ago, Consept said:

Also the arguments youre proposing against the vaccine are pretty much exactly the arguments that those who didnt want the seatbelt law were arguing as well. 

Impossible. It's a false-equivalency. As I said, you can take off a seatbelt you put on whenever you want. It's not the same with vaccines. You can't unvaccinate a vaccinated person. 

Edited November 27, 2022 by mr_engineer

[Danioover9000]

@mr_engineer

1 hour ago, mr_engineer said:

It would not be an abuse of power if the regulators were willing to admit to mistakes when they made them. And they could repair the damage they do to people. 

The problem with irreversible damage is that it disincentivizes regulators to admit to their mistakes. And, they have to keep doubling down on their abuses of power. This is why, rolling back mandates either never happens or is done very, very reluctantly. 

When you mandate a vaccine, a pharmaceutical, that's developed in a hurry, by people who have paid the largest criminal fine in US history (this is why you need the alt-media, to tell you important stuff like this that the mainstream-media omits), who also get a liability-waiver in their 'emergency-rollout', I'm sorry but you're playing with fire. It's an unacceptable risk. 

Impossible. It's a false-equivalency. As I said, you can take off a seatbelt you put on whenever you want. It's not the same with vaccines. You can't unvaccinate a vaccinated person. 

   You are lost at this point, a blind anti vax with a craving for radical freedom of speech.

[Bad_anarchist]

Free speech changes over time, everytime a new idea gets introduced people will go ape shit crazy and will try to censor it becuase it threatens them. Goverment have controlled information for all of human history and censorship has always existed, internet is starting to change this, which is why mass media is having a mental breakdown at the moment. Mass media is dying becuase of the internet, academia is dying because of the internet.    

Free Speech is not a right it is a principle, free speech is something you have to take. You take the right to say whatever the fuck you want reagrdless if you will get canceled or not.

I feel like this lecture fits perfectly here. 

 

@Leo Gura @Eyowey @rnd

Edited November 27, 2022 by Bad_anarchist

[Leo Gura]

The fact that you want the right to say anything regardless of considering how it affects others in your community just goes to show how juvenile and unintelligent you are.

This lack of intelligence has become a disease.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Bad_anarchist]

@Leo Gura Who said that?

[Danioover9000]

@Bad_anarchist

4 hours ago, Bad_anarchist said:

@Leo Gura Who said that?

   Obviously it's @mr_engineer.

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, Bad_anarchist said:

@Leo Gura Who said that?

Free speech absolutist types.

No society/community has ever had absolute freedom of speech. Because it is too harmful and too easily exploitable. Every social space must have rules that everyone must follow. This is the basis for all civilization. This is not a mistake nor a violation, it's common sense and decency. All social spaces require observing basic decency. That's really all that moderation is meant to accomplish. But humans are so indecent that they struggle just to accept that.

Edited November 28, 2022 by Leo Gura

[mr_engineer]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The fact that you want the right to say anything regardless of considering how it affects others in your community just goes to show how juvenile and unintelligent you are.

This lack of intelligence has become a disease.

This is a strawman of free speech absolutism. 

They want the right to share any ideas. And this should not be affecting anyone negatively. (If you're getting triggered over ideas, you're a snowflake and you need to do some shadow-work.) Not the right to personally attack or threaten people! That's off-limits. 

If you want to know who controls you, look at who you're not allowed to criticize. 

Edited November 28, 2022 by mr_engineer

[mr_engineer]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Free speech absolutist types.

No society/community has ever had absolute freedom of speech. Because it is too harmful and too easily exploitable. Every social space must have rules that everyone must follow. This is the basis for all civilization. This is not a mistake nor a violation, it's common sense and decency. All social spaces require observing basic decency. That's really all that moderation is meant to accomplish. But humans are so indecent that they struggle just to accept that.

If the people in power are corrupt, moderation fails to accomplish this goal. Miserably. Ideas get censored. Discourse becomes impossible. People get emotional over ideas. Echo-chambers form and people become more and more separated, intellectually. 

Good for low-consciousness, low-brow marketers. As they get to position products to people stuck in certain rabbit-holes. This is the actual reason why they don't want the echo-chambers to integrate and resolve stuff! The 'hate-speech' talk is a smokescreen for it. 

[Leo Gura]

29 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

They want the right to share any ideas.

Some ideas are dangerous.

It's not just that ideas are shared, it's that bad actors spread discord, misinformation, and exploit free speech.

Edited November 28, 2022 by Leo Gura