663
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
663 points (94.6% liked)
politics
31115 readers
2553 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
things change over time.
for SOME TIME, it was treated as laughable misinformation, and directly censored... later it wasn't. (check out coverage on Jon Stewart when he talked about it when you weren't supposed to)
at a LATER TIME it was no longer bad to talk about it.
sorry you have no idea what's 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 weren't 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, I'm 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 wasn't until later when we had more evidence that it emerged as a serious possibility.
That's how science works. Unless an idea is supported by clear and sound evidence, it's untrue. The lab leak theory can be misinformation at one point in time and viable at another point in time -- 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, it's actually plausible. It blows my mind that this is a novel concept for some people.
what??? no it wasn't. 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 "truth" with "a broader scientific belief"
that doesn't make sense, and isn't what "misinformation" even means.
well that's the stupidest analogy i've ever read... the "date" and "temperature" of the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis didn't change.
it blows my mind that you're patting yourself on the back for such utter drivel
You're assuming it's true and working backwards from there.
Science is not just a free exchange of ideas. It gives no quarter to unfounded ideas and pseudoscience. You're welcome to propose ideas, but the scientific community can and will tear them apart unless there's a strong basis.
If there is evidence, it must in general point to the truth.
you're talking out of your ass, and im done talking to you