Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 803 posts

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#641

Post by kube-system »

whiddershins wrote: post #202
kube-system wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he meant that "cloth masks aren't good enough " he could have said that. But he's a senator. His statement was a dog whistle to his base. They're not looking for an argument that people should be wearing N95s, they want to discredit all masking. The word "prevent" is a red herring -- nothing is 100% -- the goal is to decrease infection, not prevent it.

This whole dog whistle thing is just a way to put whatever interpretation on someone's words you feel like.

Well, that’s the entire point of a dog whistle. They’re intentionally vague enough to encourage listeners to draw their own conclusions.

They’re not hard to identify if you understand the viewpoints of the listeners or even just observe their reactions. If two groups like a statement, but they both thought it meant a different thing, that’s probably a dog whistle.

Take for instance:

“Vote for kube-system, he’s one of us. He thinks congress should do what’s right for Americans and their families; end the dishonesty in Washington, and protect the rights and values you deserve.”

What demographic am I talking to? Who are the dishonest politicians? What rights and values? Could be anyone!

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#642

Post by gibba999 »

16bytes wrote: post #589
gibba999 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science is a process, not a democracy. Overall consensus is irrelevant. I know perfectly good scientists who believe cloth masks are useless. They're in the minority, and I disagree with them, but I can't classify reasonable opinions I disagree with a "misinformation." I went against the scientific establishment early in the pandemic advocating for masks, when consensus was that they were useless. The evidence and co…

IIRC, the early consensus wasn't that they were useless, it's that there was no RCT that said they were effective. That's a big difference. Our understanding now is different. If this was Sen. Paul's only statement--that most masks are ineffective--that would have been a bigger judgement call. Sen. Paul, however, continued by saying that not only is it a fact they are ineffective, but Dr. Fauci knows this and is ther…

I read the studies back in March 2020. There was pretty evidence from:

* Studies on the spread of flu virus

* Case studies of COVID in Asia.

We know a little more today, but not a lot more. We have replicated the flu results with COVID19.

I didn't hear anything in that interview which felt out-of-bounds for normal discourse. It certainly was a step higher than discourse I hear from liberals all the time in my community, and discourse I hear from other conservatives.

I disagreed with a lot of what he said, but it didn't deserve to be censored. It was intelligent, reasoned, and I just happen to have a different opinion.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#643

Post by sp332 »

iammisc wrote: post #636
sp332 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The internet"? It's just YouTube. He's a senator, he has one of the biggest and most un-cancelable platforms in the world.

What platform is that?

They can call a press conference whenever they want and get national news coverage. They can write down anything they want and hand it to the clerk for inclusion in the Congressional Record. They have email and physical mailing lists. The CAN-SPAM act doesn't cover political calls or texts, either.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#644

Post by subsection1h »

cvwright wrote: post #297
cogman10 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ineffective government mandates There's the bait and switch. You see, cloth masks aren't as effective as N95 mask, that doesn't mean they aren't effective. Nor does it mean that the government mandates to wear masks are ineffective. Frankly, you can look at nearly every other world government that issued similar guidance to the CDC and in all cases those countries did better than the US. Why? Because it wasn't a po…

You want to argue that Covid results are due to politics? Then maybe you can tell us why blue states NJ, NY, and MA have the highest death rates in the US?

The 20 states with the highest recent COVID-19 death rates are Louisiana, Nevada, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, Alabama, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Idaho, South Carolina, Georgia, Utah, Wyoming, Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#645

Post by nickthemagicman »

newacct583 wrote: post #510
nickthemagicman wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think wearing the same mask every single day and being able to take it off when the waiter brings the breadsticks is an effective mask policy? Would you go into surgery with a physician who wears the same mask on a daily basis?

> Do you think wearing the same mask every single day and being able to take it off when the waiter brings the breadsticks is an effective mask policy? More so than not wearing a mask at all, yes. Are you arguing for more effective mask distribution and more stringent mask enforcement? I think I'd agree that is warranted at the moment. But you're not, you're just whatabouting.

Would love a citation for that.

Texas lifted all restrictions including masks and has lower infection rates per capita than most places with mask mandates and Covid restrictions.

So the statement you make with arrogance may actually be wrong misinformation.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#646

Post by subsection1h »

DrJones1098 wrote: post #345
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree :) As always, I'm replying to their absurd comment in the hopes of enlightening a more neutral bystander. I have no illusions of being able to change their mind. They seem perfectly content to make unsourced claims that go counter to everything that's ever been discovered about immunology and virology without even the slightest hint of regret.

Agreed. It's arrogant ignorance. The scariest part to me is that there's not even a hint of curiosity in their minds about what they're putting in their bodies and the changes in society happening. If there was they would be a little more open to questioning the narrative because if they even did a little digging they would see things arent black and white as presented. Bill Maher is liberal and HES questioning this…

> Less than 50% of people have taken the full vaccine in America.

The majority of people in the better states are fully vaccinated.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html

> There's a lot of people who agree with us.

Yeah, and they're mostly poorly-educated people in lesser states. (The sort of people you'd find at r/NoNewNormal. Right, Nick?)

https://www.prri.org/research/religious-vaccines-covid-vacci...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#647

Post by TMWNN »

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #545
Natsu wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate the word "dog whistle" because they let people sub in what they think the person said for what they actually said. I have seen otherwise intelligent people who could not even come up with a convincing straw man of what the other side believes for longstanding debates like abortion due to their bubbles. > Some people have gotten pregnant while on birth control, therefore birth control "doesn't work". Some peopl…

The term dog whistle is regularly used as a covert form of Ad Hominem that I find logically annoying, basically "ignore everything this person said because" insert assumption of what was meant and derogatory term about political affiliation . We see this lots in our media and it seems they are trying to do our thinking for us, rather than letting us draw our own conclusions. Face to Face, and in the past, we were muc…

>The term dog whistle is regularly used as a covert form of Ad Hominem that I find logically annoying, basically "ignore everything this person said because" insert assumption of what was meant and derogatory term about political affiliation.

Agreed. "Dog whistle" basically means "I can't find something to attack in what ideological opponent said, so I'm going to pretend that what he said actually means something else, and attack that instead".

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#648

Post by MisterBastahrd »

iammisc wrote: post #633
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do YOU think that a CS grad can call upon his CS background and magically be an expert on Windows domain management on par with people who do it for a living? Because THAT is what we are talking about here. Rand Paul is an eye doctor, not an infectious disease specialist, and not an epidemiologist. The experts on this topic have spoken AND written AND researched the subject. Any credible information about it would ha…

He is an opthalmologist not an optometrist. A md degree gives you the ability to practice medicine. Paul will have been trained on the whole body. The eye speciality is an added specialization. As an MD he should be able to do everything from basic first aid to general diagnosis to delivering a baby in a woman even with major complications should he have to. He may have to do some research and reading but he is autho…

That's like pretending that the lead developer on MS Word and John Carmack are equally qualified and capable to speak on 3d graphics algorithm optimizations because they both know computer things. The best Paul can hope to do is to read the results research that these experts ACTUALLY PERFORMED.

He's not on their level and his opinion on the matter has zero importance other than his vote in the Senate.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#649

Post by lhorie »

kcplate wrote: post #638
lhorie wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This thread feels like a game of broken telephone: you're literally quoting a quote of a quote. Rand Paul's overall stance is basically "let's revolt against masks because freedom". Whether Rand Paul's carefully cherrypicked arguments are technically medically/factually correct doesn't really matter, you need to consider the narrative as a whole. Youtube deemed that promoting his overall message is a threat to public…

You realize you are advocating thought policing here, right?

I'm not advocating for anything though? I didn't even claim to agree w/ Youtube in the first place. I merely said that the way they went about this specific case could've been far less controversial if they deferred explaining rationales to the proper health authority rather than taking it upon themselves to decide what "evidence" is factually correct.

Besides, thought, speech, broadcasting and individual rights on private and public spaces are all very different things. At the end of the day, Youtube's platform is their own turf and they ultimately have the physical power to take down whatever the heck they want. Twitter, Facebook and self-hosted wordpress instances all exist as alternatives for Rand Paul, and he'll certainly be back on YT with his same agenda next week. Countries can (and do) hit Youtube with whatever fines they think are appropriate. Rand Paul's constituents will be Rand Paul's constituents. Every party in this saga is basically just doing whatever they want. Where does thought policing fit into any of this?

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#650

Post by quantumBerry »

nicetryguy wrote: post #637
quantumBerry wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet somehow I have managed to live half of a normal lifespan without such an "explosion" and maintain a happy and comfortable family, a clean criminal record, and have never caused anyone else serious harm or property damage. The difference between you and I is that you believe I am an inconsiderate immature person for disagreeing with you, whereas I merely believe those with different opinions (even you) merely have…

I assume you won't change your views until some sort of personal tragedy happens. That's a shame. I'm imagining you as the gentleman being intubated on the ventilator with the "Don't Fauci My Florida" novelty T-shirt. I can't respect or level with that my dude. I'm sorry. GL HF

>m imagining you as the gentleman being intubated on the ventilator with the "Don't Fauci My Florida" novelty T-shirt.

Considering I'm fully vaccinated and the rate of death of the vaccinated with at least one cause listed as COVID in my state is currently about 1 per 75,000 person per year, I'm afraid the odds of that happening is rather low. But glad to know you're literally reveling in the idea of my death merely for disagreeing about the validity of seat belt laws.

It paints a perfect view of your morbid and pessimistic view towards others. Honestly before you made a joke about my death I thought you were merely just a kind person with a passionate disagreement.

Post reply on HN