Not sure why you’re asking me this. I sure as shit don’t have any say in moderation here. I’m just capable of reading the mod log.
I guess one thing you could help me out with is the “read the reason for the ban”. Is it “In the wrong place” or is there something else. If that’s all, then what exactly does “In the wrong place” mean.
Edit: Just saw this part
I didn’t even really know we had one of those.
Edit: OK, I just found the mod log thread. I assume that further discussion of this should be in the about moderation thread, so I guess I’ll carry on there.
1 Like
Here’s the explanation in the mod log. The first two paragraphs of the quote came from Tilted when he was mod and the rest is from otatop for the most recent ban.
Silenced @Scylvendi for a few months. It was discussed back when he started posted here that he was a previously multi banned poster with questionable views from 2+2. The suspension ran out and they immediately come back to post views such as… “Vaccines are giving people heart disease and killing everyone” and “Maybe we should stop focusing on racism”.
Someone can make a thread on if they want to permaban, remove silence, or disagree.
Wouldn’t you know it the silencing ended and Scylvendi (aka kelhus) went right back to his old tricks.
Permanently suspended, have fun over at Breitbart or wherever.
What are “his old tricks” referring to here if not posting an article?
I asked this in the about moderation thread. I think we should probably continue over there. Kelhus has made some dumb posts (but not bannable, imo) in other threads so maybe it could be that. I’ve got no idea.
1 Like
We (unfortunately) already have a place for stupid moderation discussions. This isn’t it.
2 Likes
Right, hiding the article above was clearly a misclick.
Most charitably, there is no reason to post the Daily Mail article on the Nature Medicine article when one can just link to the Nature Medicine article directly. The Daily Mail article overly fearmongers about the actual science, and it throws in some unrelated scaremongering about giving safe and effective vaccines to children. Given the poster’s history, it’s plain that including the scaremongering that’s piggybacking along with the actual science was intended.
1 Like
You’re not wrong, but if we’re gonna ban people for doing that, the list is going to be very long.
And there is utility to linking to the source that is watered down and tries to simplify it for lay people. Plenty of people, even regs here, will have their eyes glaze over if they got a link to the Nature Medicine article. But they would read a NYT (or Daily Mail) article that comments on the study and purports to present the highlights.
Can anybody tell me if this timeline is correct?
- Churchill shares a link that says that the vax might not actually stop people from getting the rona
- Wookie bans Churchill for fearmongering & trolling & not understanding “basic germ theory” with Ikes cheering him on
- Vaxxed people get the rona
- Zero self-reflection or mea culpa from Wookie
2 Likes
It’s not. The germ theory discussion comes from people claiming that you could effectively spread covid without contracting it because initial studies showed a protection from infection not stopping spread completely. Turns out that’s still true.
The frustrating bit is that you feel like you have any reason to be so arrogant about coming at me and wookie when both of us have a combined decade plus more training in bio and science than you do.
Welcome to the forums!
Anyways, wrt Churchill’s talk about variants. You might remember that it was delta that was the first variant to significant lower the efficacy of the vaccine wrt infection. You might think that means Churchill was right when he talked about variants, but in truth delta is the fourth letter in the greek alphabet and Churchill was saying all sorts of stupid shit about previous variants too.
Carry on.
Thank you for the confirmation
Yes, exactly. The next two posts:
Me:
The annoying bit is that it’s always possible that something could change, but we have some great data that suggests the vaccines are holding up against variants spectacularly well at this point.
Wookie, giving the context what was being talked about:
And there has been zero evidence despite people looking for it that any strain can escape transmission but not infection. Everything shows that if you’re protected from infection, you’re protected from transmission as well.
lol AQ, lol churchill, lol at anyone stanning for Churchill. Pathetic honestly.
Again, and as ever, that post is referring to
No covid variant has ever spread effectively without people contracting it, just as one would expect from basic germ theory.
2 Likes
Just staggering dishonesty. From the very first vaccine acting on the very first strain, OG Wuhan, the vaccine was 90-95% effective. That means with absolute certainty that some people who were vaccinated got the rona! At no point has anyone here ever said that vaccinated people were perfectly protected from ever contracting it. And no, mutations were not necessary for vaccinated people to contract covid. There have always been vaccinated people contracting covid, just a lot less of them than unvaccinated people, and with much better health outcomes.
Agreed, your treatment of churchill was staggeringly dishonest. I’m glad you’ve come around.
4 Likes
Oh yeah let’s not forget the best churchill moment!
Looks like Churchill deleted the original post (because he’s so honest obviously), but it’s a screenshot of a YouTube page, completely uncited.
Churchill knows this is from some anti vax moron, refuses to say what it was!
Cause it’s Youtoobz and everyone likes to dunk on Churchill
I find it:
Hey @churchill I found out what YouTube you got this from. Y’all would be shocked as to why he wasn’t forthcoming with his source.
That screenshot looked really weird so I did some digging on this paper, and the video is here . The timestamp he took this screen shot from is at 8m09s. Could it be some other video? I don’t think so. Churchill is a sucker for any brit.
Look at his screenshot though, it’s a little weird right? It’s not a clear graphic on a screen. That’s because this guy holds up a paper to the camera, likely because this dumbass boomer is too dumb to do it electronically. This is the same video.
This guy is a truly reprehensible piece of shit @churchill, and you should be embarrassed that you’re getting any information from him. How you sat through the guy crying about getting his booster is beyond me.
You should check out John Campbell’s other videos, which are full of covid and vaccine misinformation. It’s a really great insight into you Churchill’s thoughts.
My favorite video is this one:
Where he shits on the BBC (used to be really good) and defends the use of Ivermectin. What the fuck are you doing Churchill? I’m sure there’s more heinous bullshit on his channel but fuck me if I can stand more than a minute of it.
Thanks for the trip down memory lane!
Campbell has leaned into antivax nonsense even harder since, but churchill was treated sooooo unfairly. Takes were right in the end! lol
Kelhus is a nut-low poster and should never have been allowed to post here in the first place. His posting history is sufficient reason. No need to argue whether one specific post is okay or or not.
11 Likes