The Babylon Bee's Twitter account is no longer suspended

Explaining how to make a sniper from a commercial rifle and how to find 5.56 AP from military surplus got a friend banned from FB. It was either that or the following post about a chemical company CEO car plates and usual tour. Luckily he lives deep into the woods, so according to him (through his friends), FBI agents waited for three days near his postal box before just leaving a mail asking him for an audition. Didn't get charged, but lost his FB account. It made organizing my trip to the US hell, as Messenger was at the tine the best way to reach him.

I'm still bummed to have learned that despite the lower killing potential, the NRA still don't fight for sniper rifles and commercial true AP rounds (you can still get AP for rifle with a lead core, which will go through bodyarmor btw, but nothing to go through a Limo :/). It feels like it goes against the second amendment.

I'm not denying anything. In four short words I explicitly accepted my interlocutor's claim. Please don't misrepresent.

> You sound like an antivaxer.

Empty insults aren't helpful either, or allowed by guidelines. When they're obviously contrary to reality, they're actually laughable. I mean, really? This is the level of counterargument you have to offer?

> If something is true who cares if a lot of people talk about it and like the content?

Strawman. This isn't at all about who talks about or likes the content. It's about attempts to mislead people, even if no actual untruth is uttered. Even the law, which is usually pretty strict about requiring proof of wrongdoing, recognizes that omission and misrepresentation can be equivalent to actual untruth. My "good guy with a gun" example makes the same point elsewhere in this thread. When a person or group of people goes around Twitter citing the same weak study about myocarditis and vaccines a hundred times, they're trying to inflate its actual significance relative to dozens of stronger papers on all sides of that same issue. They're using it to instill fear, not to inform. When done for an ideological purpose, as it often clearly is, that's disinformation.

Please note that I'm not trying to prove or disprove any point about vaccines or myocarditis. Go have that poo-flinging contest somewhere else. Consistent with the topic of this submission, I'm trying to address the issue of an uptick in certain tactics that people on all sides use, which pollute public discourse and make all of our lives worse. It's really sad that every one of the responses has only illustrated more of the same problem.

>Empty insults aren't helpful either, or allowed by guidelines. When they're obviously contrary to reality, they're actually laughable. I mean, really? This is the level of counterargument you have to offer?

I was being sarcastic.

Antivaxxers say "I'm sure the virus is real" or "I'm sure the booster will protect us this time".

I should have been more clear. I assumed it was obvious with capitalizing "The Science".

>Strawman. This isn't at all about who talks about or likes the content. It's about attempts to mislead people, even if no actual untruth is uttered.

So what is the solution. We can't know the motives of people when they say truthful stuff. Should we suppress truthful things when it becomes too popular because somebody may abuse the truth?

The reason why people are so heavily pushing myocarditis is because we were told the vaccines were completely safe and anybody who disagrees is an antivaxxer conspiracy theorist. This is just incorrect.

>Even the law, which is usually pretty strict about requiring proof of wrongdoing, recognizes that omission and misrepresentation can be equivalent to actual untruth.

I haven't seen any misrepresentation or omission on this subject (not that I have looked much). Every post I have seen have talked about young men having the issue not everybody.

>My "good guy with a gun" example makes the same point elsewhere in this thread. When a person or group of people goes around Twitter citing the same weak study about myocarditis and vaccines a hundred times, they're trying to inflate its actual significance relative to dozens of stronger papers on all sides of that same issue. They're using it to instill fear, not to inform. When done for an ideological purpose, as it often clearly is, that's disinformation.

That is just not the definition of disinformation. Disinformation must be false information.

You are also just making massive assumptions about people's motives. How would you like if I did the same to you? The only reason why you are saying this topic is disinformation is because you want young boys to die from myocarditis. See how dumb that is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression_Olympics

> Now we get trolling from everybody

I don't know what are you talking about, but feminist lesbians with anti-trans, gender-critical perspectives tend to be loud. They must be the sexual minority equivalent of kicking away the ladder after I got mine.