'They' are controlling you. 'They' are silencing you. – Washington Times(m.washingtontimes.com)
m.washingtontimes.com
'They' are controlling you. 'They' are silencing you. – Washington Times
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/sep/12/they-are-controlling-you-they-are-silencing-you/
26 comments
It doesn’t invalidate the rest of the piece
Yes, it does. If you've determined the author is dealing in bad faith, everything else becomes suspect, at best.
IMO what invalidates the rest of the piece is that it's currently trending in multiple places. Apparently "they" couldn't get to this article?
It's kind of funny. Discuss natural immunity in Canada or the US and you're immediately met with derision. Yet it's good enough for EU immunity passports.
What disturbs me is that we're throwing out the baby of critical science with the bathwater of raging idiocy. It has become blatantly obvious that COVID is here to stay, and we need to question if the right approach last year (lockdown, mask, social distance etc) still makes sense in a world where a) everybody who wants to get vaccinated can, and b) it's starting to be become clear that, while vaccinations are great at preventing severe illness & death for a while, they don't last forever and are not a silver bullet for stopping infections.
This is how it works in all fields. We can’t talk about different possible climate scenarios because of denialists. We can’t talk about issues with evolutionary theory because of creationists. We can’t talk about genetics and intelligence because of racists. We can’t talk rationally about fringe ideas like UFOs or psi because of new age wackos and cultists.
The best way to shut down rational discussion in an area is to promote sensational lunacy. Then everyone self censors to avoid sanctioning the lunatics. This is not entirely irrational… many of the nuts in question are really toxic and dangerous. Things like racism and antivax hysteria kill people.
Most of that stuff is grassroots, but it could certainly be weaponized. For example if I were a pharma company and wanted to cover up a problem with a vaccine I would promote hysterical antivax bullshit. That way you make it impossible to rationally discuss problems with vaccines. If I were running a child trafficking operation I would promote Qanon.
This phenomenon is not new per se but social media renders it devastatingly powerful today.
I don’t see a good solution. Every solution is either “let society be overrun by cults of idiots” or “implement some kind of exclusionary elitism or totalitarianism.”
Maybe the solution is for some well meaning person to purchase and erase Facebook and YouTube. That would at least render the problem less acute.
The best way to shut down rational discussion in an area is to promote sensational lunacy. Then everyone self censors to avoid sanctioning the lunatics. This is not entirely irrational… many of the nuts in question are really toxic and dangerous. Things like racism and antivax hysteria kill people.
Most of that stuff is grassroots, but it could certainly be weaponized. For example if I were a pharma company and wanted to cover up a problem with a vaccine I would promote hysterical antivax bullshit. That way you make it impossible to rationally discuss problems with vaccines. If I were running a child trafficking operation I would promote Qanon.
This phenomenon is not new per se but social media renders it devastatingly powerful today.
I don’t see a good solution. Every solution is either “let society be overrun by cults of idiots” or “implement some kind of exclusionary elitism or totalitarianism.”
Maybe the solution is for some well meaning person to purchase and erase Facebook and YouTube. That would at least render the problem less acute.
[deleted]
Aren't the lunatics in this context the ones who refuse to get a vaccine because they "did their own research"?
I did my own research. I read about mRNA vaccines, looked up how they worked, searched for credible safety data, etc. I decided to get the vaccine and thought the tech was rather cool.
The problem isn’t doing your own research. It’s failing to understand or discern and falling for sensationalism.
You have to either know enough to understand the primary material or know enough about the nature of expertise to discern who likely knows what they are talking about.
If you can’t do one of those things then you’re better off not trying to do your own research.
The problem isn’t doing your own research. It’s failing to understand or discern and falling for sensationalism.
You have to either know enough to understand the primary material or know enough about the nature of expertise to discern who likely knows what they are talking about.
If you can’t do one of those things then you’re better off not trying to do your own research.
This is basically why the rule to not feeding the troll is important. You cannot win by arguing against the point, you just ignore them. There is no other solution.
You can also not claim that this lunacy will be believed by innocents if you do not fight the information itself. That isn't ignoring it and elevates the claims in the first place.
Everyone that claims there is an "infodemic" probably just wants sensationalism where they can put crazy on pedestals for clicks.
Society won't be overrun be a cult of idiots, some just hold companies hostage to nudge them to censor undesirable content. There was bullshit on Youtube since its inception. It only became a problem when people said it is.
You can also not claim that this lunacy will be believed by innocents if you do not fight the information itself. That isn't ignoring it and elevates the claims in the first place.
Everyone that claims there is an "infodemic" probably just wants sensationalism where they can put crazy on pedestals for clicks.
Society won't be overrun be a cult of idiots, some just hold companies hostage to nudge them to censor undesirable content. There was bullshit on Youtube since its inception. It only became a problem when people said it is.
Even though the silencing of opinions is a bit concerning, why do I feel that "control" or a "passport" around an issue like vaccines are not a big deal? If it's about control or division or identity discrimination, a covid vaccine passport is such an easy thing to get around? I mean, there's getting the vaccine (one way), or even generating a fake "passport" once they are out should be trivial right? This whole symmetry that's thrown around Nazi germany just doesn't make sense, typically groups are persecuted around identity characteristics that are immutable, where having or faking having a covid vaccine is easily mutable?
I don’t get this argument. A bad law is ok if it’s easy to bypass.
"We needn't bother legalizing cannabis, because its so easy to get anyway."
Strikes me as "we don't make the laws and can't change them so why bother paying attention beyond the avoiding punishment from an adversarial state?"
Practical, yes, but I haven't despaired of our republic that much either.
Strikes me as "we don't make the laws and can't change them so why bother paying attention beyond the avoiding punishment from an adversarial state?"
Practical, yes, but I haven't despaired of our republic that much either.
Wouldn’t natural immunity require… getting Covid? At a 2% death rate (yes that’s debatable), in the US, that would mean 7M deaths. Or, everyone could be vaccinated with a vaccine that’s not perfectly safe (around 1 death per million - resulting in 350 deaths from the vaccine alone) but is ~93% effective. 7% of 7M + 350 is much less than 7M. And yes, I’m sympathetic to the “my freedom” view, while being vaccinated. But I just don’t understand people pushing the natural immunity and 7M deaths versus vaccines and a tiny fraction of deaths. What am
I missing? Does the natural immunity crowd want us to hold a massive “Get Covid” rally, drop 7M people, and get on with our lives? Or are they suggesting that those who don’t want to take the vaccine get to just not take it, and eventually get Covid? (While taking ivermectin and monoclonal antibodies? A la Joe Rogan)
2% is really extreme. Here’s an overview of different studies in different countries.
The global high estimate is .68%
https://swprs.org/studies-on-covid-19-lethality/
The global high estimate is .68%
https://swprs.org/studies-on-covid-19-lethality/
The point stands. Even 2.4M deaths is not a reasonable trade off vs people just taking a safe, free, and available vaccine.
The most important part of censorship is the censorship about the extent of censorship. The most important propaganda is the propaganda that justifies propaganda itself.
As part of that propaganda, the most important modern propaganda is the "fake news" narrative. The narrative that somehow everyone who gets their information outside the mainstream media is a conspiracy theorist who is too dumb to think critically and probably as dumb as people who think 5G causes coronavirus and earth is flat. The narrative that even speaking about vaccines or coronavirus is "dangerous" in itself and that the best way to deal with vaccine / lockdown / covid policy criticism is to bury the head in the sand and fill your ears with wax and cut their tongues. People are being trained to firewall themselves to true information coming against the mainstream consensus. They are being trained to consider their friends - who they personally know to be smart and rational - as conspiracy theorists and stick to the narrative of the media.
People who are convinced in their truth do not seek to silence a dialog. You only seek to silence conversation when you know the results will be against you.
As part of that propaganda, the most important modern propaganda is the "fake news" narrative. The narrative that somehow everyone who gets their information outside the mainstream media is a conspiracy theorist who is too dumb to think critically and probably as dumb as people who think 5G causes coronavirus and earth is flat. The narrative that even speaking about vaccines or coronavirus is "dangerous" in itself and that the best way to deal with vaccine / lockdown / covid policy criticism is to bury the head in the sand and fill your ears with wax and cut their tongues. People are being trained to firewall themselves to true information coming against the mainstream consensus. They are being trained to consider their friends - who they personally know to be smart and rational - as conspiracy theorists and stick to the narrative of the media.
People who are convinced in their truth do not seek to silence a dialog. You only seek to silence conversation when you know the results will be against you.
The redditization of hn continues - this story is (ironically?) flagged.
Why is this flagged? This should not be flagged.
"The topic I chose was frankly quite simple and straightforward; many might rightly suggest it was even boring and mundane"
The author knows disease immunity, in the current climate, is none of those things.
It invalidates the rest of the piece.