5 Likes
i donāt have issue with whether you identified needling or not, or whether you think others have identified needling or not. I have an issue with you thinking that church needling needs to be highlighted in case someone missed it.
Another rephrase of the same thing - whether the needling was clear or not has no barring on my argument. Needling by itself is standard procedure here, so explaining it (when you werenāt even the receiving end of it) is extremely out of line by virtue of almost never happening, to a point that requires a discussion on how and why it happened in this instance. ESPECIALLY when this is directly correlated with the entire issue surrounding Churchill, which I explained really clearly in my previous posts.
why is that not clear to you still?
This is a really problematic tactic where I keep explaining the same thing, you either purposely or not refuse to engage with it and continue to talk about a different issue and at the end you and everyone else will say āWHY DO YOU POST SO MUCHā.
I donāt mean to post so much on this obvious subject, my point is extremely clear. I am dragged against my will. Send help.
2 Likes
Are u challenging me to a gif dance competition?
1 Like
1 Like
1 Like
representing israel
3 Likes
1 Like
Didnāt post this during the RFC, and Iām 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.
Itās 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 Iāve 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 donāt 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 Churchillās bias towards the youtuber for being a Brit, so the response was not unprompted.)
how can āchurchill is a sucker for any britā and āanother umprompted uk vs us dunkā 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 ācommunity standardsā are. But any claim of ābiasā 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 āsuper-modā 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. Iām sure others who followed the issues will have better understanding than me.
withholding the source because it would be challenged doesnāt seem like a big crime though if at all. Iād be more interested in the actual study cited and since i know nothing about it, I canāt comment really.
ā
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 isnāt, but Iām 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 didnāt 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 Iāve 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 canāt 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 Iāve known online for years.
Jesus Iāve 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 didnāt share the source specifically because he knew it was bad. I only figured it out because other people had posted clips of Campbellās idiocy and I noted how weird it was that he took videos of him taking notes on paper.
āThe threadā 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 āproblematicā, 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.
Hereās the screenshot I deleted, why donāt 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.
Thatās because it was a long running source of covid misinformation and unwarranted vaccine skepticism. You know this.
No you didnāt, and anyone can see you refusing to give the citation after being asked several times where these numbers came from. Iām not sure if we ever did find out what journal it was from.