This is such an interesting view. I understand this as you accept being taken for an idiot, if it's in your interest. And you accept that the person making that decision has your interest in mind. Do I understand you correctly? Myself I prefer having all the facts and drawing my own conclusions, being able to ask questions and consider all options. I'm capable of it, and people in power are seldom there based on comp…
sorry- it was sarcasm - I'll try to remember to put a next time.
Usually I would've expected so, and I even considered including it in my answer. But the last 2 years has made me question humanity too many times. It's a shame.
Some seem to be okay with the government and intelligence agencies working hand-in-hand with Big Tech to make sure we only get to learn and discuss corporate sponsored healthcare advice now.
Do you think saying "vaccines cause cancer" is fair game then? Where do you draw the line?
I can go to the sources, read studies and ask for opinions on stuff I don't know about.
What I cannot do is read a deleted message.
I'm more scared of those eager to use their well oiled delete and ban buttons, than someone spewing bullshit.
So we should not prevent people from talking about the fire in the crowded theater is what you’re saying?
Yes, if people want to discuss fire in a crowded movie theatre they are free to do that. That doesn't mean they can jump out of their seat, scream "fire", and urge everyone to evacuate the theatre. I could see consequences for doing that, but calmly asking "does anyone smell smoke?" seems harmless.
> Thing is, there wasn't that much of it before the CDC spent over a month spewing bullshit telling people not to wear masks because masks don't stop the spread of COVID. They made it clear after the fact that this was done because there wasn't an adequate supply of masks for 330M people, and they needed to secure a supply for first responders. The job of the government is to make tough decisions like this in times o…
>The job of the government is to make tough decisions like this in times of crisis. You can agree or disagree but this was neither malicious nor in my opinion outside the scope of the role. I understand how dangerous it is for the government to lie, but what do people think would have been the proper approach here? Do we not remember what it was like during the early pandemic and all the hoarding that was going on? D…
They could have just reached out to Walmart, Amazon, etc. told them that the government is buying all of their stock at a fair market rate via eminent domain laws. By lying to the populace they have set vaccine trust and trust in the CDC back decades. They could have told the truth and still easily gotten what they wanted without causing longterm harm.
> They made it clear after the fact that this was done because there wasn't an adequate supply of masks for 330M people, and they needed to secure a supply for first responders. I wouldn't ever be able to trust a govt org again if it was revealed they'd made the decision to deliberately lie to their populace. There are few things that a government can do which is unforgivable, and brazenly lying to the faces of its c…
> There are few things that a government can do which is unforgivable, and brazenly lying to the faces of its citizens is one of them. That's a pretty naive position and by its definition one shouldn't trust any government on earth. Government exists to provide glue for societies when individual motivation is insufficient or harmful. These situations are generally pretty serious (national health crisis, economic fail…
> The first casualty when war comes is truth
Most wars would not be fought if governments were trustworthy. And those that remain could be fought with full transparency.
Trust is everything in society. When you start making exceptions everything falls apart.
> Again, a crap situation, but one that the CDC wasn't responsible for. They simply messed up. All they had to do was say nothing and reach out to the manufacturers making N95 masks and their retailers. Just going to Walmart and Amazon and getting them to pull their stock would have prevented the vast majority of people from getting their hands on them. A non-trivial number of Americans at the time had already been w…
If the government quietly convinced all major retailers to stop selling masks that would’ve been 10000x more detrimental than the mixed messaging early on. If someone could produce even one document implying that this was discussed at all it would’ve been catastrophic.
It would have had worse short term political consequences because it would have been an unpopular decision. But it wouldn’t have reinforced the worldview of conspiracy theorists.
They screwed up a bunch of things during COVID, but not many really trustworthy organizations actually just straight-up lied. Having something concrete to point to can’t help.
Do you think saying "vaccines cause cancer" is fair game then? Where do you draw the line?
You don't draw the line. Some of you have a real problem understanding the entire meaning of free speech. If you just think a few steps ahead you'll understand that if you "draw the line" then someone has to be the arbiter of truth. That arbiter will not always be on your side as we've seen over and over throughout history. If you see someone touting a blatant lie you only need o refute it with actual evidence. Suppr…
"Some of you": nice.
You do sound like someone who never had to decide anything in their life and thinks only theoretically, disregarding reality.
Absolute free speech is dividing by zero, basically.
> is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. That's a question. A statement would begin with "there is". It's embarrassing that people are mischaracterizing his remarks based on a bad transcription.
[flagged]
When I ask a question, I'm usually implying that I don't know, not that I already have some reason to believe in one answer or the other.
We shouldn't jump to conclusions - medicine can be strange sometimes. We inject mold juice to fight bacteria and put explosives under our tongue to stop heart attacks.
There WAS a LOT of misinformation about covid, and a lot of it could cause real harm. Quite true. Thing is, there wasn't that much of it before the CDC spent over a month spewing bullshit telling people not to wear masks because masks don't stop the spread of COVID. It was obvious to everyone and their dog that masks help stop the spread of respiratory infections. That irrevocably shattered a whole lot of people's fa…
I find this not very credible as the biggest contributor to the anti-masker anti-vaxer movement, especially because that movement exists in places where most people don't even know what the CDC is.
The CDC was not the only institution that spread this anti-mask narrative.