Are u challenging me to a gif dance competition?
1 Like
1 Like
1 Like
representing israel
3 Likes
1 Like
Didn’t post this during the RFC, and I’m mostly what some call a leech in the community, but this personally struck me as problematic. A screenshot was posted (since deleted) and citation was requested but withheld.
It’s not just the effort that went into determining the source but the acknowledgement that the source was withheld because it would be challenged. The study cited was also problematic (although there are merits of discussing those things). And the icing was another *unprompted points uk vs us dunk (which I’ve never understood) since most in the thread also agree the US response was bad and the implication that others in the thread were advocating for no boosters which I don’t recall happening (and if it did it was isolated and not the reason for disputing the study or the youtuber citing the study).
(*Edit: Yuv correctly pointed out that CN criticized Churchill’s bias towards the youtuber for being a Brit, so the response was not unprompted.)
how can “churchill is a sucker for any brit” and “another umprompted uk vs us dunk” co-exist in literally the same post?
1 Like
This is absolutely fair. How you do feel about the rest of the interaction?
2 Likes
A thoughtful post deserves a thoughtful reply.
Any/every open forum requires some rules and moderation. We have a minimal set of rules and moderation guidelines. So moderation alone cannot be the problem. But the moderators could be biased for/against certain posters. Indeed we have heard this claim for years and years.
Okay, largely in response to this claim the original forum mods stepped down/rotated out. And several other community members have taken their place as mods over the last year or so. With regard to Churchill, these mods have also meted out several temp-bans for poor/trollish posting during that time. And, more generally there have been others who have allegedly received unfair treatment by mods (both past and current). Of course, not every poster is going to agree with every mod decision or what the appropriate “community standards” are. But any claim of “bias” is something that should be taken seriously.
Are there any other possible systemic solutions we can try that might help eliminate/mitigate any such bias? An idea that was floated a long time ago was a “super-mod” committee that could review any controversial mod decisions. The super-committee could, for example, reverse/shorten temp-bans. Of course, a super-committee is essentially kicking the can down (up?) the road, but maybe it could help.
1 Like
I lack tons of context when it comes to churchill and covd studies. I can only comment on something that is blatant to me which I did. I’m sure others who followed the issues will have better understanding than me.
withholding the source because it would be challenged doesn’t seem like a big crime though if at all. I’d be more interested in the actual study cited and since i know nothing about it, I can’t comment really.
–
I only replied because it related to my previous point. If churchill is some sort of terrible false information anti-vaxxer spreader I honestly have no clue. My guess is that he isn’t, but I’m far from being informed enough to make a call on it. The parts where he is being singled out for his rhetoric push backs and needling has routinely seemed wrong to me, like here and in the pervious discussion with goofy.
I try not to comment on things i know little about, such as covid studies.
The actual study cited was fundamentally flawed, in that it didn’t control for prior infection in the control group, which makes the vaccines look less effective than they actually are.
Also, it was a preprint, so it is especially irresponsible to not post the source.
2 Likes
You keep Louis Riel out of this
Edit: I was ponied by Clovis, sad days.
1 Like
This is a really important point and I can honestly say the same about every post I’ve ever made. I have accused you or trolling in the past and I was clearly wrong. My apologies.
There is just a fundamental problem with online communication:
- we can’t get most of the normal social cues from each other online that allow us to ascertain intent
And
- actual trolls exist online.
This leads some of us (me for sure) to way overestimate how often someone is actually trolling rather than either actually disagreeing or communicating poorly.
I can only control myself so I am pledging to assume the best intent of posts from people I’ve known online for years.
Jesus I’ve known some of you for more than a decade now!
6 Likes
Hey what is this? People being reasonable in the bickering thread?
Churchill withheld the source because it was from a moron named Dr (of nursing, not medicine) John Campbell who regularly spread misinformation about Covid and got internet famous because of it. Churchill didn’t share the source specifically because he knew it was bad. I only figured it out because other people had posted clips of Campbell’s idiocy and I noted how weird it was that he took videos of him taking notes on paper.
‘The thread’ was going after me for posting a screenshot of the findings of a study? They seem far more interested in the source of the screenshot, than the actual source of the findings. Which I posted, which you seem to have left out of your post.
Just about every study I have ever posted has been ‘problematic’, especially the studies that found vaccines waned over time. It was almost like certain posters thought I wrote the studies myself, rather than just me putting them out there for discussion.
Here’s the screenshot I deleted, why don’t you compare that to the stats above. Maybe wonder if the Anti-Vax dog (woof, woof) was necessary, why Trolly was so concerned about a screenshot rather than the findings of the report and just why CN wanted to discredit a youtuber and not focus on the findings.
That’s because it was a long running source of covid misinformation and unwarranted vaccine skepticism. You know this.
No you didn’t, and anyone can see you refusing to give the citation after being asked several times where these numbers came from. I’m not sure if we ever did find out what journal it was from.
The link is still in the CN twitter post below my post in the covid thread? It was a study of 620,000 US veterans. I think a mod deleted my post with the link at the same time as handing out another ban (as the reported post contained more than just the link). Here it is again.
Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections in 620,000 U.S. Veterans, February 1, 2021 to August 13, 2021
As stated, y’all seemed a lot more interested in the ‘source of the screenshot’ than the actual study at the time. Another pile on in return for posting probably the largest US study on covid.
You were asked multiple times for a link to that study. Given that it was a paper that didn’t pass peer review, it seems the skepticism was entirely warranted.