41–50 of 209 posts
So, in response to a story about alleged unmarked graves in Canada we have: A comment about January 6th A comment about Kyle Rittenhouse A comment about COVID At least COVID is somewhat relevant to Canada.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to believe that more education would help, but today it seems that the most educated are most likely to spread these dangerous kinds of misinformation, whereas uneducated people are most likely to question it. The educated seem to be more dangerous if for no other reason than they control the media.
Something I have noticed too, and it seems to be a common trend many are noticing. What do you think causes it? Anyone know any studied terms to explain this? My thinking was that "smart" people are busier and outsource their thinking in other aspects to media they can trust. If that media lies to them, they are smart, so they don't want to admit they were wrong. They are too smart to be fooled! But I don't know if t…
same as with covid, which is dangerous but not anymore so than many other preventable causes of death that are completely ignored instead of hyped as the end-of-the-world. we are truly in an age of perpetual unfounded social panic. thanks twitter. as with most other problems, more educated people, especially regarding science, math and specifically statistics could help prevent these foolishnesses.
We can all tell you weren't actually listening to the experts you so detest because that wasn't their stated rationale. The rationale was "flatten the curve" -- some hospitals were two doubling periods away from having parking lots full of people slowly dying for want of ventilators. That's what the lockdowns were about. Making sure we never overwhelmed the medical infrastructure.
Subsequent R-control measures were about making sure it stayed that way. As better options for keeping the hospitals safely under-capacity appeared -- first vaccines, and then simply the fact that subsequent variants sent a smaller fraction of the infected to ventilators -- the measures were relaxed. As was appropriate.
What's amazing are the number people who continue to stick to Trump's initial February 2020 "ignore it and it will go away like magic" alternate reality, even though the man himself abandoned it in March 2020.
Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as po…
Now a step further. Does loving your enemy mean not punishing them? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment—even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and accept the punishment. It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a person for their crimes or a Chris…
2. What does any of that have to do with Nazis? Your comment seems to be a complete non-sequitur.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask around and be horrified as to how many people confidently think Kyle Rittenhouse shot one or more people who were 1. unarmed 2. black (edit: I see now someone made the above point a few minutes before i finished typing my message, but I suppose that goes to show how widespread this myth is) Conservatives get the brunt of blame for "conspiracy theories" and "disinformation" these days, and while I won't deny it do…
What's really horrifying is how many people seem unaware that the people he shot were under the impression that they were trying to stop an active shooter. You know, do that good-guy-with-a-gun thing, while acting on initially (but not eventually) incorrect information. It's quite likely that if he were the one gunned down, and not the other way around, the people who did so would have walked, too.
same as with covid, which is dangerous but not anymore so than many other preventable causes of death that are completely ignored instead of hyped as the end-of-the-world. we are truly in an age of perpetual unfounded social panic. thanks twitter. as with most other problems, more educated people, especially regarding science, math and specifically statistics could help prevent these foolishnesses.
"Could" is doing a lot of work there. I think, empirically, you will find the opposite relationship.
Quick look at sources from Wikipedia confirms that the articles’ basic assumptions have a rather loose association with facts. And the site itself is known for propagating hoaxes and promoting alt-right (Noah Carl).
Wikipedia itself is awfully untrustworthy, though - look what they're doing with the "recession" page today.
same as with covid, which is dangerous but not anymore so than many other preventable causes of death that are completely ignored instead of hyped as the end-of-the-world. we are truly in an age of perpetual unfounded social panic. thanks twitter. as with most other problems, more educated people, especially regarding science, math and specifically statistics could help prevent these foolishnesses.
The amount of lies during COVID is worthy of an entire book. This decently sums it up: https://www.piratewires.com/p/neurotic?s=r
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask around and be horrified as to how many people confidently think Kyle Rittenhouse shot one or more people who were 1. unarmed 2. black (edit: I see now someone made the above point a few minutes before i finished typing my message, but I suppose that goes to show how widespread this myth is) Conservatives get the brunt of blame for "conspiracy theories" and "disinformation" these days, and while I won't deny it do…
What's really horrifying is how many people seem unaware that the people he shot were under the impression that they were trying to stop an active shooter. You know, do that good-guy-with-a-gun thing, while acting on initially (but not eventually) incorrect information. It's quite likely that if he were the one gunned down, and not the other way around, the people who did so would have walked, too.
I'm still unaware of that. Do you have a reference?