281–290 of 345 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In healthcare there's a bunch of stuff that sounds plausible, and then we do the research, and we find that it doesn't help or it causes harm. Evidence based medicine isn't there to stop crystal healing. It's there to work out whether knee arthroscopy is better than placebo. (For some patients it isn't). Masks have a plausible mechanism of action. But they also have plausible mechanisms of harm: they may reduce socia…
The Lancet's credibility is kind of in the toilet right now thanks to publishing that Hydroxychloroquine study that appears to have had the data pulled from thin air
This statement is utterly absurd. The credibility of an entire scientific journal with nearly 200 years of operation is not shaken by accepting a scientific paper that after being subjected to peer review didn't held to scrutiny.
This line of critisicm reveals a profound ignorance regarding the whole scientific establishment. I mean, only someone entirely ignorant and oblivious to the whole scientific process would assume that passing the review stage of a scientific journal is a rubber-stamp of approval that all observations and ideas and conclusions represent the final and unquestionable proof. That's now how it works. Papers are published to expose ideas to peers and thus subject them to scrutiny. Some ideas don't pan out, some might be misguided, and there might even be some instances of straight pure scientific fraud. But that's not what the aim of the acceptance process, is it?
The upside of this sort of case is that suddenly we have random people caring about science and the scientific process. It's a shame though that they don't educate themselves on the very basics and instead are more interested in dragging institutions through the mud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> fact based Does it represent both sides of the controversy equally or is it only nitpicked facts?
Which controversy? Why are both sides worthy of equal representation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the whole point of extreme political ideologies like libertarianism and anarchism is that they are dogmatic. They have simple answers to complex problems. If you're grappling with gray areas, then congrats! You now have a more nuanced understanding that brings you closer to center, and you're not libertarian anymore.
I think part of the problem is these labels mean different things to different people, and can express anything from a vague philosophical preference to an absolutist ideology. Many of my peer group (myself included) have broadly libertarian sympathies but are also willing to pay for a more generous welfare state if that's the price of freedom. What label applies in that case? Left-libertarian? Small-government liber…
Liberals want to take care of people (more generous welfare state -- universal health care etc.), but still believe in the market.
I'm curious why you don't consider yourself a liberal, or what ideology you think is mixed up in it that you reject?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What about improving education, building functional (and trusted) institutions, and having more independent (non-profit driven) media? They do not work, because the time and cost to create and widely disseminate falsehoods is much less than the time and cost to refute those falsehoods. See "Firehose of falsehood" [1], which is an apt name for what happens now thanks to the internet and social media greatly lowering…
Exactly. I see a lot of posts refuting the garbage from the too post, and it does nothing. It’s like watching a whole community try to nail jello to a telephone pole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the whole point of extreme political ideologies like libertarianism and anarchism is that they are dogmatic. They have simple answers to complex problems. If you're grappling with gray areas, then congrats! You now have a more nuanced understanding that brings you closer to center, and you're not libertarian anymore.
I would say that calling libertarianism an extremist ideology is a gross misunderstanding of it. My guess is everything you think you know about libertarianism, was what you were told by somebody who hates it. Full-on anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism, ok, that's a hard sell. Libertarianism? It's basically "never initiate aggression" and "live and let live". That's about it. I don't know what's extreme about that.
You don't? Live and let live means, in practice, let die. Libertarianism says, if you had bad luck and are poor and you get a disease you can't pay to cure, you die.
Libertarianism is the extreme of selfishness. "Live and let live" means "I've got no obligation to anybody else, screw 'em." In modern society, that's incredibly extreme.
I wonder why he hasn't used his freedom of speech to make the text of his pamphlet freely available on his own website, instead of depending on a publisher to carry it. Granted, it would be harder to monetize this speech, that way. He'd have to find a payment provider, take payments directly, et cetera. But I don't see why those ancillaries should detract from upholding a principle that clearly means so much to him.
He's not asking a lot of money for it, and he put in the work. People still gotta eat man. Maybe not this guy with his backing and work and I'm sure he has plenty of money, but to answer your point, other people who have been censored have released their materials for free. Take for example the book "Nobody Died at Sandyhook"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm generally confused why you are being downvoted for pointing this out.
HN should really get rid of downvotes. They only play one role: To alter how others perceive a post I am unfortunately immediately biased against a post that is greyed out. Greyed posts are increasingly just a different political view rather than an objectively wrong statement. If a post is truly problematic, there is a flag option. Let the cream rise to the top, but don't tell people how to think.
After a half hour long conversation with my neighbor last week of him trying to convince me that Bill Gates is behind coronavirus, please, for the love of our future, continue banning information that is blatantly put up on a bad faith basis. It's exhausting to see my mom and dad succumb to a new conspiracy every other day. I don't see how else we can curb this other than for the tech companies to start aggressively…