“I'm not saying everyone dissenting from the generally accepted opinions should be fully banned from the Internet or sent to jail”
What are you saying, exactly? We just fine them increasing amounts of money until they agree with the “generally accepted opinions?”
Who gets to decide what the generally accepted opinions are? How do we even know they’re right? Why does everybody have to agree on everything? Your musings are, quite frankly, childish. People are entitled to their incorrect opinions.
If you want to end climate change denialism or anti-vaccine sentiment, discuss the facts with people who sympathize with those viewpoints. Convince them on the evidence. Find better evidence if you can’t.
The people like yourself who want to engage in censorship never have the truth on their side. There’d be no reason to censor anything if you did: just lead with the truth instead. Let the facts speak for themselves. The fact that you can’t convince people of your “facts” is proof that you your ideas are garbage.
By all means though, continue to push for censorship. It will only increase the skepticism and distrust of the “generally accepted opinions” held by polite society.
> What are you saying, exactly? We just fine them increasing amounts of money until they agree with the “generally accepted opinions
Maybe? Alex Jones still hasn't accepted reality regarding the Sandy Hook massacre, even after losing a trial. Éric Zemmour still peddles blatantly racist and false information after being fined multiple times for it. Is there a way to even stop that kind of person? Anyone listening to them ( and Trump, and Nigel Farage, and Boris Johnson) obviously isn't interested in facts, because everything out of their mouths is easily debunkable with a few minutes online
> If you want to end climate change denialism or anti-vaccine sentiment, discuss the facts with people who sympathize with those viewpoints. Convince them on the evidence. Find better evidence if you can’t.
That doesn't work and hasn't for years. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
> The people like yourself who want to engage in censorship never have the truth on their side. There’d be no reason to censor anything if you did: just lead with the truth instead. Let the facts speak for themselves. The fact that you can’t convince people of your “facts” is proof that you your ideas are garbage.
That's an entirely useless personal attack. I never claimed any facts, I'm claiming that people peddling easily debunked bullshit they pass as fact can't be allowed to do this constantly without repercussions. Because they are causing real life harm and using "it's just my opinion, I'm just asking questions" as a shitty excuse.
All governments spread misinformation on purpose? I suppose it's too much to ask for proof on that?
Maybe you mean the initial mask conundrum? That was evolving guidance based on realities ( not enough masks) and current understanding of a changing situation. It was pretty much everyone, led by the WHO, though, but it was only kind of wrong ( I don't know about the whole world, but in France the official line was that "masks don't help you not get infected by much, there aren't enough of them and most people wouldn't know how to use them properly, so there's no need for everyone to wear a mask", which evolved to "masks stop you spreading, so everyone wear a mask").
So, all governments officially said all of those while knowing them to be untrue? That's a bold claim ( i live in France and don't recall anything of the like on any of them). Care to share some sources?
I can also add the lie about 90% of patients in ICU being non-vaxed. We were later told that it was a misinterpretation of the available data.
Etc etc. It became kind of a meme: when Olivier Veran says something will never be done, it ends up done quite soon. I was about to get this vaccine. But those blatant lies deterred me from doing so.
It's not lying to change one's opinion, or to be mistaken. Lying needs intent. Véran changing his opinion or being overruled by Macron doesn't mean any one of them is lying on purpose for some nebulous purpose.
> Maybe? Alex Jones still hasn't accepted reality regarding the Sandy Hook massacre, even after losing a trial. Éric Zemmour still peddles blatantly racist and false information after being fined multiple times for it. Is there a way to even stop that kind of person? Anyone listening to them ( and Trump, and Nigel Farage, and Boris Johnson) obviously isn't interested in facts, because everything out of their mouths is easily debunkable with a few minutes online
Do you have any examples of left-wingers producing misinformation? You know, people on CNN or MSNBC? Or are you going to produce only right-wing examples because you live in an absolute bubble and have no ability to see that there is daily misinformation on all corporate-owned networks: Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc... and even in a very egregious way.
It is clear to me that you only read Democratic-party aligned news sources and have a terribly biased and skewed worldview where apparently only "tHe RiGhT-WiNgErS aRe RaCiSt hurr durr". Your guy Joe Biden has produced more racist outcomes with his Crime Bill than Donald Trump has ever done in his tweets.
Nice attempt at whataboutism, but I'm talking about specific examples of egregious misinformation that is kind of dangerous. If you have anything of substance to add besides handwaving "the other side in my broken two party country is also bad and lies about inconsequential stuff while the one i like literally spreads medical misinformation resulting in people dying", do so. For the record, both your parties are rightwing, one is just far-right while the other is centre-right. Both are full of idiots, but one is obviously worse, which is sad for the people opposed to the policies of the less bad one ( because they have no other options).
You have also spewed well known lie by claiming that Ivermectin is a horse medicine, while it is first and foremost human medicine which was only later on appropriated for veterinary purposes. There are studies on Ivermectin's effectiveness for COVID, some of which are ongoing, and calling it a "horse dewormer" is a clear smear tactic -- definitely not by an innocent actor. I personally went back-and-forth on whether Ivermectin was actually effective for early treatment on COVID. But whatever the ultimate answer is, censoring discussion about it, or lying by calling it animal medicine is clearly a dishonest tactic.
I do not care about Republican or Democart parties. I care about the truth. And now that we have access to both primary sources, studies and multiple sources of informations, no one has to take the establishment narrative at face value -- which is something done in corporate news channels such as CNN and MSNBC. At this point it's better to watch Tucker Carlson on Fox, because at least there you'll get an anti-establishment view, which any decent person should always strive for.
As I said before, I am triple-vaxxed. I am not against vaccines, but I am against the lies, power grabs and censorship that have plagued us since the beginning of this pandemic. The push for the vaccines has forced mainstream media and tech companies to censor any discussion on potential early treatments that were being researched (hydroxychrloroquine [which now we know is not effective], ivermectin, monocolonal antibodies, etc...), some of which were actually proven to be very effective. This is absolutely insane. The vaccine itself is not 100% effective, so why silence this information?
It is funny how when the vaccine was developed under Trump, both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were "promoting vaccine hesitancy" a crime which now gets you deplatformed and declared a social pariah: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/campaign-press-rel...
I don't even want to get started about the inaccurate COVID mortality reporting, and how actually extremely low the deaths from COVID-only are, especially for people younger than 50 - as opposed of people dying "with COVID" and a ton of other comorbidities.
What are you saying, exactly? We just fine them increasing amounts of money until they agree with the “generally accepted opinions?”
Who gets to decide what the generally accepted opinions are? How do we even know they’re right? Why does everybody have to agree on everything? Your musings are, quite frankly, childish. People are entitled to their incorrect opinions.
If you want to end climate change denialism or anti-vaccine sentiment, discuss the facts with people who sympathize with those viewpoints. Convince them on the evidence. Find better evidence if you can’t.
The people like yourself who want to engage in censorship never have the truth on their side. There’d be no reason to censor anything if you did: just lead with the truth instead. Let the facts speak for themselves. The fact that you can’t convince people of your “facts” is proof that you your ideas are garbage.
By all means though, continue to push for censorship. It will only increase the skepticism and distrust of the “generally accepted opinions” held by polite society.