Sorry, canāt find any better sources for this.
The animator then asked Maher what the ādownsideā of āgetting a vaccineā was, which caused the comedian to go on an anti-vax tirade.
āThe fact that you the fact that you donāt even have a clue whatās the cost of getting a vaccine that you donāt know the answer to that. You completely want to shut your eyes to the fact that there are repercussions to all medical interventions, including a vaccine, all vaccines,ā he ranted. āThey come, they say side effects, just like every medication does. You can see it in the literature. They canāt write it on their back on the vaccine. So you have to dig them. And of course, there is a vaccine court because so many people have been injured.ā
i went ahead and listened to that āantivax rantā and really it wasnāt against the vaccine at all, he was against the censorship of discussion about it and policies around it.
such as, the lab leak hypothesisā¦ once completely censored as āmisinformationā, but now a viable theory.
or how previous covid infections donāt count as a vaccination, although the immunity ends up the same.
a lot of his ideas on it are wrong, or misinformed, but the fact that we werenāt allowed to talk about it was fucked upā¦ and i think it was a lot of the reason antivax shit got so bigā¦ being completely censored by bots on every forum makes a lot of people paranoid.
i do also remember being shouted down in every forum by a mob of anti-vax russian sock puppets, so it wasnāt for no reasonā¦ but still, being able talk about things is crucial for a democracy to function.
It was never completely censored. Evidenced by the fact that you, me, and everyone else heard about it.
People got called names for promoting it without good evidence. People also got called names for pointing out that the evidence was super weak. Yāknow, what passes for ādebateā these days.
Stop lying
omg, youāre soooooo right!
it wasnāt completely, 100% censored, because ive heard of it! i must by lying!!!
your evidence is so solid! so much better than what passes for debates, is you completely proving that im lying.
go ahead and pretend like you havenāt seen comments, videos and posts removed for āmisinformationā
liar
When a topic has been covered by multiple national newspapers, itās just very silly to claim censorship.
The White House press secretary has said they worked with tech companies to ban misinformation. The Twitter Files showed many government agencies giving them guidance to for the rules around covid misinformation, then giving lists of tweets to take action on for breaking said terms and conditions. Like or not what goofy things people thought about covid, the government telling them to shut down these posts is clearly against the first amendment.
The actual information released in āthe Twitter filesā showed the opposite of what muskyās pet propagandists said it did.
You seem to actually admit that what happened was identifying posts that violated the terms and conditions of private companies. No demands or threats were issued.Does the government have no right to speak truth?
If a government agency notices a lethal hazard in your town that doesnāt technically violate the law, should they be prohibited from telling you and your neighbors about the danger?
things change over time.
for SOME TIME, it was treated as laughable misinformation, and directly censoredā¦ later it wasnāt. (check out coverage on Jon Stewart when he talked about it when you werenāt supposed to)
at a LATER TIME it was no longer bad to talk about it.
sorry you have no idea whatās being discussed here.
im sorry if you really think that there was no censorship involving covid discussions online.
and i dont really care how silly you are.
They werenāt censored very well, clearly. And considering a lot of COVID misinformation was telling you to inject horse dewormer instead of getting a vaccine, I wish it was censored better. In a public health emergency, Iām pretty okay with requiring statements to be scientifically and medically sound.
Second, it was misinformation at the time. Researchers and the general scientifically community believed the evidence pointed to other theories. It wasnāt until later when we had more evidence that it emerged as a serious possibility.
Thatās how science works. Unless an idea is supported by clear and sound evidence, itās untrue. The lab leak theory can be misinformation at one point in time and viable at another point in time ā if I predicted heavy snowfall on a 74 degree day in June, it would very obviously be wrong. If I predict it for a 20 degree day in December however, itās actually plausible. It blows my mind that this is a novel concept for some people.
what??? no it wasnāt. it was a plausible hypothesis.
that is not how science works. science works by a free exchange of ideas
no. something can be completely true but not at all supported by evidence. You are confusing ātruthā with āa broader scientific beliefā
that doesnāt make sense, and isnāt what āmisinformationā even means.
well thatās the stupidest analogy iāve ever readā¦ the ādateā and ātemperatureā of the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis didnāt change.
it blows my mind that youāre patting yourself on the back for such utter drivel
Youāre assuming itās true and working backwards from there.
Science is not just a free exchange of ideas. It gives no quarter to unfounded ideas and pseudoscience. Youāre welcome to propose ideas, but the scientific community can and will tear them apart unless thereās a strong basis.
If there is evidence, it must in general point to the truth.
youāre talking out of your ass, and im done talking to you
Much like this postās OP, couldnāt find any better sources? How about the actual interview in YouTube? Google the names of the two guys, thatās all it takes. But no, letās all just rant about how bad anti vax people are, rather than argue whatever points they make. This is such an extreme echo chamber.
For me, it was most revealing when the EU parliament got the pharmaceutical execs to admit they did not track basic stats of the vaccine. Does it prevent infection completely? If not, does it stop retransmission? Does it minimize the severity (no reaction, slight cold, hospitalized, death)? Nope, weāre not tracking that.
well thatās crazyā¦
and got the vax earlier than most (got sorta a standby appointment for when higher risk people didnāt show up)ā¦ and i got a boosterā¦
iām a very big fan of vaccinesā¦
iām still not a fan of the way the covid vaccine discussions were censoredā¦
This is a thing that really bothers me these days, has me worried.
Thereās such an emphasis on ākilling the messengerā (vs the message) and shutting down discussion, that we havenāt seen in previous ages.
I donāt know why itās a new thing, maybe itās just astroturfers/bots, otherwise itās the newer generation being okay with censoring others, and thatās a bad thing (censoring others).
itās been pretty crazyā¦
with covid we had people dying from dumb information, and russia running huge disinfo campaigns onlineā¦ so i did understand cracking down on itā¦ but just completely stifling all questioningā¦ at allā¦ was a huge, and terrifying, overreaction.
ā¦
i got banned from reddit for arguing in worldnews against obvious israeli disinformationā¦ so thatās fun
ā¦
one main troll tactic now is to just fuck with people until you get them aggravated enough to cuss or something, then report themā¦
(just got a warning on here, actuallyā¦ i can say any horrible, literally destructive thing i wantā¦ but if i cuss at someone or call them a name, well THEN im uncivil
Thatās what happens when youāre trained to recognize buzz words as a strategy for defending yourself against idealogies you disagree with. Not defending yourself because youāre right, but because it keeps you from being exposed too much to what the other thinks. Itās easier to paint things āgood, badā, file them away and go on with your day.
It isnāt that they think censorship is good, itās that theyāre trained to censor themselves. This is just late stage social media brainrot taking full effect, among other things.