Of course, I already said that I am well aware I could be totally wrong about some things.
They all follow their own agendas, serve us with truth when it suits them and half truths or lies when it doesn’t.
I am not surprised but that. I am surprised so many people are not aware of that and those who are often don’t seem to be bothered by it. Just because it has been there for so long, doesn’t mean we should accept it as normal.
What navigation tools? I would like to know more about your logic there. We are being more and more controlled…it is becoming increasingly difficult to get real information.
As @nadia stated in her replies…we live in the age of spin and misinformation. It takes a lot of energy to get real understanding of things. Usually very few people have time for that nowdays, I certainly almost never do. Right now I should go back to my programming course, but this subject really got under my skin and I am very worried for the world of our children.
That’s why I cite people who risk everything stating what they state or publishing the data they publish. People not financed for researching but the very same people whose wealth could increase by billions, depending of the outcome of the research. People not paid huge amounts of money for pushing a certain narrative. Kind of obvious where the conflict of interest lies, when on the other side you have very highly paid individuals or people who invested billions in the matter.
On top of that, when I see people who risk so much, being censured, silenced or punished without any real scientific evidence their statements are harmful for anyone, I for sure will pay closer attention to what they have to say. Just basic logic. If there was clear evidence their statements are false and damaging, it would or should be brought up publicly through proper channels.
So when you state “some guy from youtube or facebook”, you basically don’t take into considerations their achievements/experience or sources they site…as he did not appear on the official communication channel or as part of an approved organisation? I mean, that is ridiculous as that person is already silenced a great deal.
Here is a guy who knows a lot about media, who quit and went solo, challenging the main narrative. His main reason for quitting is “I have 5 children”, That should tell you a lot, as the guy left a successful and very lucrative career for that. His content is constantly being deleted etc…
That’s my whole point. This whole crap is politically motivated and there is no science behind it. As a man of science, I thought you would appreciate that example.
I am not complaining to science, certainly Lancet has a great deal of respect from me as they kept their integrity. They no doubt face huge pressure…it is clear why they are the world’s no1 medical journal.
I am just pointing out the huge gaps in the policy makers’ approach. Being as far as possible from real science.
The research you included is about the masks effectiveness, which is kind of obvious. That was never a question, question was how were they used.
Way more serious things here are the points I raised already or included in links.
Totally agree with you on risk of picking the wrong sources. Not on the 2nd part. Hydroxycloroquine was made illegal or doctors and pharmacists were very strongly recommended not to prescribe or sell it. You know that great majority of them are on the pharma payroll anyway. That was my whole point. They have made decisions based on 0 science. That decision took away many people’s right of choice, and potentially harmed a lot of people.
My problem is not with science, my problem is with “science” or manipulation of the same by “experts” who are experts only in politics and power structures. Manipulation both by scientists and policy makers.
Wow, nice excuse for so much stuff, we can expand it indefinitely. I am not surprised the argument made sense back then, after seeing nazi Germany rise so easily. That for me goes in pair with people misusing the “survival of the fittest” to justify all kinds of crap. Now, we can say it was misunderstood and give them the benefit of the doubt. My thinking is, it was understood as the observer had certain preconceptions/mindset and wanted it to mean exactly that…so still having full responsibility.
Well good thing people made that argument obsolete by actually doing things and proving they work in practice. In fact that practice is the only way to build bridges between polarised communities and influence the “intolerant ones”.
Trust me when I say I know a lot about polarised communities. I have been in deeply divided society, full of distrust, sometimes hatred, mostly deep annoyance and prejudice. All that can only be bridged with exposure. Exposure to the other side through various activities together, or just meeting normal decent people, or talking with peers who had experiences with “the other side” etc.
I have 100 examples from my life. The best example we have here in Belgium is the Flamish and French. I know people from both community and, talking with them, I realised most have prejudice because of lack of interaction with the other side and political influence…as some idiotic politicians always score points on nationalism.
Here is the example of a guy who did exactly that and had amazing results. An Afroamerican seeking out KKK members and literally turning them away from that crap. A real hero for me.
I also had a specific case in my family, with my little brother who was indoctrinated in a special nazi ideology. it is easy when it is “the other side”, some random people somewhere you don’t know. So you have no empathy, or need to build that bridge. So just censure them and push them underground. Let them victimise themselves even more, and surround themselves in an echo bubble.
Would you do the same if it was your brother or father?
My point here is, we need more empathy and interaction and we can reach people in great majority of cases. If you support your arguments with science, logic and real world examples, you can certainly reach more people than if you push them away.
It’s all good when you have scholars writing about it, discussing it but, real world is most of the time something very different.
That line of thinking can be applied only in extreme cases, I certainly didn’t state I wouldn’t censor anything at all. As i clearly stated in the examples above, that we can dominate any debate in those examples with facts and logic. That is supported by the argument you linked.
This part specifically:
Popper expands upon this, writing, "I do not imply for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would be most unwise.
I further added the ban would have the counter productive effect.
I don’t see any conflicting logic in these 2 statements. Where do you see it?
