Look, let’s put a pause on the details of this particular case. Do you think someone who repeatedly posts misinformation in the covid thread (or other threads, if you will) should be moderated? Should the strictness of the moderation increase with repeating offense? And finally, does saying one good thing, like “my family and I are all vaxxed” give you a license to assert one or more bad things, like “covid was in Europe in early 2019” without consequence? I am yes, yes, and no, for the sake of openness.
1 Like
So here’s the thing that bothers the shit out of me. Earlier you said ‘churchill did nothing wrong’, then ended up with saying he’s trolling. Now you start off with ‘he almost got permabanned’ like that’s a bad thing, but you seemingly never looked into it? How do you have all these opinions on things when you haven’t looked into it at all?
Of course no one should be banned for saying “covid was in Europe in early 2019”. Wtf?
That wasn’t the question.
Those are a lot of different things and accusations to digest.
If “covid was in europe in early 2019” requires consequence I demand NBZ will be perma banned immediately for his poker hands and analysis. Why the fuck would that be moderated? Just laugh it out. Can you imagine anyone else in the forum being moderated for a stupid comment? Have you seen some of the food posted on the food thread? It sounds almost laughable that you seriously say that is a moderated needed offense.
So then we are left with giving a proper definition to what “misinformation” means. Does not revealing Dr John as the source he heard about the paper “misinformation”? In that case I would say absolutely no. Does posting BBC articles that you think are wrong misinformation? Does being genuinely wrong in his opinions misinformation?
Or did he bring over endless amount of Anti Vaxxers youtubes like any aunt on facebook?
Every time i see a church case brought up, which is still a small sample when considering the 20ish bans, I see more of a “bad BBC”, “not giving the source to his jpeg” and “he said a stupid”. None of those are moderation offenses to me and I will demand they are applied to NBZ if they become such.
Now I have seen multiple times the damning quote where you discuss TEH VARIANCE in a way that whether by bad luck or bad play has proven to be extremely wrong. Is that misinformation? Who judges that? Just ignore him when he makes a UK joke. It will really be helpful to the community and will cost no one anything. I guarantee no one will become anti vaxxer.
well i didn’t see the editing in regards to covid in the 19th centaury
(btw i do appreciate the discussion even if i disagree with you so far. It has been far better than the ones I had with others today)
The standard here is pretty ridiculous. I semi-follow that thread. I see a lot of Churchill’s posts. I have a pretty good idea of it, but not perfect. The thing where I said he did nothing? Ok, I’ve also said lots of times he does some trolling. If you are trying to actually be reasonable, you won’t mention that again. I don’t have to be 100% perfect to participate. Yeah, he trolls some. Not as much as a lot of posters, but some. I really think what initially started it all is that Americans can talk all the shit they want about America, but it got under their skin when a British guy did it.
But whatever, I think I’ve paid enough attention to have an opinion, but if you’re asking about a specific incident, I wanna look at it more carefully. Seems fair to me.
No, it was neither bad luck nor extremely wrong. I stand by the post. The context in question is mocking the notion that people could spread a virus without even being infected by it due to some mutation that upends everything we know about contagious disease. If you believe people who post “germ theory” as a joke without ever explaining what I got wrong about germ theory, you’re a mark.
Things I’ve have always maintained are true:
- Vaccinations that are proven to be effective against preventing infection are indeed effective against preventing infection, even if that means that some vaccinated people will still get infected.
- Vaccination will prevent transmission to the extent that it prevents infection.
- Vaccinated people who get infected can transmit the virus to other people.
I retract my extremely wrong. It’s not my place to judge that.
My point is that the level needed to use “misinformation” as a reason for active moderation should be extremely extremely undeniable. It can’t be Wookie and Ikes think so. It has to be here are multiple fact checkers from more qualified sources than you two (neither of you are qualified researchers in this field) and it has to be extremely obvious that it is malicious.
Otherwise we are in really dangerous territory of the opinion I disagree with is “spreading misinformation”.
This goes deeper than Church. I feel it’s a very bad precedent. It one that has caused you, a fairly good poster in my view, to go on an unhinged attack on Keed as anti-vaxxer because he wasn’t sure about getting a booster. I think it’s something you’ll regret heavily when looking back at this time. And I do think that the handling of church has led you on that path.
And it’s not only you of course. You see it with Trolly. You see it with so many people. I catch myself doing so as well although I try to post less (yeah, it’s an ironic joke on myself).
Look, literally in the exchange you wanted to chime in on in particular, we were not only citing our own authority. There was citation of commentary from other relevant experts.
The standard isn’t that you read or follow every bit of that thread. You have an opinion, the thread for the banning discussed the post in detail, along with everything else. It just seems odd that you find that you’re able to judge things when you need someone to show the posts. Haven’t you already looked at them?
Sure but are you honestly claiming that finding some flaws in methodology in a paper is “misinformation” that required moderation, or a healthy discourse in a science thread?
No, and in the context of everything people have tried to show you, it’s flabbergasting that you think so. It is not hard to find numerous instances where churchill has posted a BBC article or a preprint and got absolutely zero pushback over it, and I also think it’s OK to post potentially flawed preprints for the purpose of discussion. But it is bad to push the conclusion of an obviously flawed preprint as evidence to further your own narrative.
So what is wrong and required moderation to a point where he should be perma banned?
who gets to decide misinformation that requires bans? Do you at least acknowledge how dangerous that is to a community built on arguments and discussions? Do you acknowledge how extremely careful we must be when even contemplating “misinformation” as a reason for bans?
I know of them and remember thinking you and wookie and the people who got mad interpreted them incorrectly, but I didn’t study that well. But, still, absolutely I’m sure they don’t (imo) merit a permaban. He certainly didn’t wish death on your children or threaten to doxx you or post horse porn or anything remotely approaching permaban territory. And, you both are constantly shitty to him. Of course he’s going to be shitty back.
1 Like
We can debate things! And if one side is providing meaningful citations from relevant experts while the other is cagey about revealing their sources, we should use that in our assessment.
Like, you don’t have to imagine that churchill posted nothing but “covid was in Europe in 2019” and got permabanned for it. You can go back and see that he was asked for his source and he offered up bullshit.
Def, but i was shown one case where he wasn’t the bit cagey about his sources. His source was Barbara Cohn, a far greater expert than you or almost anyone else. So in this scenario I would need Ikes to show his credentials in analyzing papers before we discuss Church.
Details are fairly important when you advocate for ban based on misinformation. Here are details when undoubtably church did not present any misinformation but you guys seem to think he had. He might have made some wrong conclusions or implications, but that is far from a ban worthy offense, especially when he was proven right at the end (well Barbara was).
This is plainly not true in the youtube screenshot case (you’re just choosing to ignore him being cagey), and you’ve been supplied other examples that you have chosen not to examine.
I think the word of the day is obtuse. The source of a paper is the paper. It has been provided within 5 minutes, I’ve been told. I do not care about the youtube screenshot and I do think focusing on it and not the paper should be moderated as it is none of your business where Church gets his news as long as he provides the sources shown in the news.
This is painfully similar to when a leak is shown on the news and the other side demands to know where the leak came from instead of discussing the leak. Painfully similar. And you are painfully on the wrong side of the argument.
I swear to god @JonnyA wrote it in plain American like 20 hours ago. I repeated it in every other variation known to English and somehow i keep getting bUt wHaT aBoUt tHe sCrEEnShOT. How is this not over by now?
1 Like
Ok, I looked it up. It’s more that I didn’t really understand what Churchill meant. It was super far from perma worthy though.
But, I thought I saw you recently say you wouldn’t vaccinate your infant, like while they are an infant.