Current Events > Do you agree with this 2 minute argument about science and censorship?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rszIyPnBvYc

The argument he makes in the first 2 min 10 seconds

---

Dont treat me like an idiot and I wont react like an idiot

---

Stop posting.

---

bump

---

You don't give a fuck about science. Stop posting.

---

Tc, you ain't gonna make a difference here. Shush.

---

COVxy posted...

You don't give a fuck about science. Stop posting.

I abosolutely care about science.

I read the articles that are the sources of these things, you use USA today as your "fact checker".

---

Sorry, let me rephrase:

You don't give a fuck about science. Stop posting.
Signed,
An Actual Scientist.

---

COVxy posted...

You don't give a fuck about science. Stop posting.

Considering some of the things you do give a fuck about, I wouldn't be talking.

---

I'm pretty sure that this man knocked on my door earlier this week and talked about how there is only one God and his name is Jehovah.

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

I'm pretty sure that this man knocked on my door earlier this week and talked about how there is only one God and his name is Jehovah.

I had that too. They asked me if I was a witness. Told em I never saw the accident.

---

COVxy posted...

Sorry, let me rephrase:

You don't give a fuck about science. Stop posting.
Signed,
An Actual Scientist.

lol whatever you are, you aren't a scientist.

Scientists care about skepticism and critical thinking.

---

Lmao, damn, your post just vaporized my decade of training and my PhD.

Guess I need to go look for a new job now.

---

https://i.imgur.com/pXciEkb.jpg
---

COVxy posted...

Lmao, damn, your post just vaporized my decade of training and my PhD.

Guess I need to go look for a new job now.

Correctness doesn't come from appeals to authority. It comes from solid critical thinking and data.

2 things you don't seem to care about at all.

Here is a peer reviewed meta-analysis of Ivermectin:
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx

It is solid data and analysis across 24 RCT.

You will, invariably dismiss it because it goes counter-narrative.

That is my evidence you are not a scientist.

---

I don't doubt Ivermectin is effective given the data. It's just a far worse solution than the vaccine. If people don't have access to the vaccine but do Ivetmectin, sure.

But really that has nothing to do with anything. The fact that your only "interest" in science has a laser focus on being heterodox regarding vaccinations is the issue.

---

COVxy posted...

But really that has nothing to do with anything. The fact that your only "interest" in science has a laser focus on being heterodox regarding vaccinations is the issue.

My interest is the most accurate representation of all the science. I am more vocal in the areas where the accepted narrative seems to be inaccurate, because of course, why wouldn't I be?

All the things that people seem to be accurate about I will say are accurate. It's why I got vaccinated, it seemed like the most prudent thing for me and society.

Doesn't mean I advocate obfuscating the data on the risks or telling people not to look into it or saying they should be banned from discussing it. That's fucked up and not scientific.

---

I'm sure there's some required reading contextualizing this topic. Poor joe feeling oppressed because people disagree with him and provided receipts?

Is it vaccine related? Is this joe's play du jour?

---

CyricZ posted...

I'm sure there's some required reading contextualizing this topic. Poor joe feeling oppressed because people disagree with him and provided receipts?

Is it vaccine related? Is this joe's play du jour?

None of what you just said makes sense.

I'll take that as a "no, I don't think we should allow open scientific discussion" though

---

I'm asking what the subject matter is and you, the intellectual, flounder and sputter.

Never mind. I found it.

---

joe40001 posted...

My interest is the most accurate representation of all the science. I am more vocal in the areas where the accepted narrative seems to be inaccurate, because of course, why wouldn't I be?

Name one scientific paper that you've read recently that is not related to vaccination or covid-19.

---

COVxy posted...

Name one scientific paper that you've read recently that is not related to vaccination or covid-19.

Somebody recently said to me "you shouldn't take ibuprofin because it makes you infertile" and i thought "ok is that true?" And I clicked through their fluff news link and read the actual article to find out the specifics.

Also I'm up to date on a lot of stuff in the tech field, though usually the people who sum AI research up are honest brokers unlike how the mainstream seems to cover some medical stuff.

---

I suppose your brand is a little more generic:
When's the last time you read a scientific study that wasn't related to you trying to debunk some perceived mainstream view?

---

COVxy posted...

I suppose your brand is a little more generic:
When's the last time you read a scientific study that wasn't related to you trying to debunk some perceived mainstream view?

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. If something seems to be a claim that could be false, I do further research.

If it doesn't seem to be false, I generally don't. (why would I?)

Unless it's me exploring my own interests like tech, which like I said I already look into things like "two minute papers' which gives a good summary and then I'll look more if I'm interested.

---

Exactly, so you have no interest in science except when attempting to prove yourself right.

See, people who actually give a fuck about science find the questions they research interesting. Like, for instance, my primary research interest is in trying to understand how cortical and subcortical brain circuits are organized and how that affects the types of computations they can perform. This is an interesting puzzle. I read papers to understand more about this and to plan my experiments accordingly.

Seems like a different mode of engagement than what you do, no?

---

COVxy posted...

Exactly, so you have no interest in science except when attempting to prove yourself right.

See, people who actually give a fuck about science find the questions they research interesting. Like, for instance, my primary research interest is in trying to understand how cortical and subcortical brain circuits are organized and how that effects the types of computations they can perform. This is an interesting puzzle. I read papers to understand more about this and to plan my experiments accordingly.

Seems like a different mode of engagement than what you do, no?

That's not at all what I just said. I care about science in finding the truth. I've looked into things and found out I was wrong, though I tend not to make claims until I've done research in the first place.

And also I just got done talking about how I've looked into science recreationally too.

But when it comes to COVID and other important and censored things though it is about getting to the truth more than recreation, but I really don't see how that's a bad thing.

---

You don't get to the truth by only looking closely at things you think are wrong but not at things you think are right.

You only care to look when you think you can prove someone wrong.

---

COVxy posted...

You don't get to the truth by only looking closely at things you think are wrong but not at things you think are right.

You only care to look when you think you can prove someone wrong.

Confirmation bias

---

So everyone in this topic is now pro censorship, anti science and prefers leaders who withhold important information that's hard to talk about.

COVxy posted...

You don't get to the truth by only looking closely at things you think are wrong but not at things you think are right.

You only care to look when you think you can prove someone wrong.

No, I look closely at all things I think I could be wrong about. It's not a function of what I currently believe or what I want to be true.

Just things where I think my information is incomplete.

I'm not looking to confirm my beliefs, I'm looking to inform myself. Politics aren't the same thing but I asked for and listened to podcasts that would most challenge my own world view.

If I'm wrong about something, it is a very high priority for me to correct my perspective ASAP. You think I challenge views on this forum? You should see what I do to my own opinions. I constantly challenge them, which is why when I formally make claims around here I usually feel more confident because I've already spent the time doing research into the places I could be wrong.

---

joe40001 posted...

If I'm wrong about something, it is a very high priority for me to correct my perspective ASAP.

Does the data bear this out.

---

Tsukasa1891 posted...

So everyone in this topic is now pro censorship, anti science and prefers leaders who withhold important information that's hard to talk about.

Basically yeah.

Or "at best' they didn't watch 2 minutes and instead decided they disagreed with the argument by just making an assumption of what the argument would be and disagreeing with that.

Which also is pretty terrible.

---

CyricZ posted...

Does the data bear this out.

What do you think I'm doing with my big topics where I post my claims and arguments? A big part is that I'm looking for somebody to provide me any evidence I'm wrong.

Those topics almost always involve people using ad-hominins or appeals to authority, so we don't get anywhere, but I hunger for people to legit be like "no, joe, this is where you are wrong, this is the data."

Nobody ever does.

I'm not even clear on what things (if any) you (or others like you) think I've been wrong about. It just seems like some of you generally just don't like me or something and you don't have anything specifically you think I've been wrong about.

I keep getting told I'm incredibly stupid, but nobody can point to a concrete argument about anything I'm wrong about.

---

joe40001 posted...

Nobody ever does.

Ah, so you have a philosophy of improving yourself when you're wrong.

Which you will definitely implement if you're ever wrong.

It just hasn't happened yet.

I see I see.

some of you generally just don't like me

Now honey why would you think that.

---

You've reposted the same video with the panel of 3 "skeptics" where they're main line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed ("VAERS spike", "no trials", "cytotoxic spike protein") multiple times after having this pointed out to you. Except now you just caveat it with "some of the things they say are unsupported".

You've responded to multiple responses with "you could be right, but what if you're not!" Repeatedly indicating that you favor pushing the less likely answer if it's more explosive or interesting or heterodox.

You're not fooling anyone, which is why your topics don't accumulate any more that "masturbation jesture" responses.

---

Again. You have no interest in science. You just want to be right, particularly when "fighting" against the mainstream.

---

Remember when Joe was arguing that black people shouldn't be part of the LGBT community despite people telling him the stripes represented the struggles of black LGBT members specifically?

COVxy posted...

I don't doubt Ivermectin is effective given the data. It's just a far worse solution than the vaccine. If people don't have access to the vaccine but do Ivetmectin, sure.

But really that has nothing to do with anything. The fact that your only "interest" in science has a laser focus on being heterodox regarding vaccinations is the issue.

"But why push hard on vaccines when we can push a prophylactic anti-parasitic that you'll have to take indefinitely?"

Unless ivermectin is proven to be an oral vaccine for COVID, it will never be an actual alternative to literal vaccines. Is treating measles the same as inoculating against it?

---

COVxy posted...

Again. You have no interest in science. You just want to be right, particularly when "fighting" against the mainstream.

All it takes is the willingness to swallow one's pride and admit that expertise in a subject does matter when it comes to having the tools necessary to evaluate multiple sources of information.

---

I kinda feel like joe has been playing a long game of deliberately trying to make people hate and distrust him so that when he eventually posts legit science, people will automatically distrust it and he can then yell "Gotcha!" when it turns out to be accurate.

---

CyricZ posted...

Ah, so you have a philosophy of improving yourself when you're wrong.

Which you will definitely implement if you're ever wrong.

It just hasn't happened yet.

I see I see.

I've been wrong before.

But I do struggle to think of the last time somebody showed me to be wrong on CE. But that's mostly a function of how it seems very few people on CE link to data or sources or concrete claims, not me having the most flawless perspectives of all time.

I'm sure I'm wrong on some important stuff. But just calling me a name doesn't make me any more informed, even the person calling me the name was hypothetically more correct than me.

Now honey why would you think that.

The rudeness, the gaslighting, the bad faith, the trolling, the ad hominins, the harassment, etc.

---

He'll be right and everyone else will hate him.

What a victory.

---

CyricZ posted...

He'll be right and everyone else will hate him.

What a victory.

When it comes to important matters, being accurate to the science is insanely more important than being popular.

Who cares if people like you if you have to say things you believe to be inaccurate to get it?

Fairweather friends are no friends at all, and truth is just as important if not more important when it is taboo than when it's not.

---

I still love Joe's narrative that somehow scientists are being silenced when he can find the published results of all the things he is stating.

That is not being silenced at all. If the argument is that some claims are not as easily passed around on social media compared to others, welcome to people being people. It is not a concentrated effort to silence any scientists. It is that their findings are not catching the attention of social media.

Actively stifling scientists is different than a social media platform (for example) not wanting to publish their findings.

---

joe40001 posted...

But I do struggle to think of the last time somebody showed me to be wrong on CE.

You haven't been proven right on lab leak yet and I have not seen you admit that "all the people like me who were mocked last year" were not science-loving, healthy skeptic centrists like you are.

"I'm right" is not the same as "They are investigating to see if I'm right" or "I'm right in specific circumstances"

---

joe40001 posted...

But I do struggle to think of the last time somebody showed me to be wrong on CE.

The other topic you made about this where it was pointed out that the Ivermectin study cherry-picked their data set to skew resultsin their favor?

---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

I still love Joe's narrative that somehow scientists are being silenced when he can find the published results of all the things he is stating.

That is not being silenced at all. If the argument is that some claims are not as easily passed around on social media compared to others, welcome to people being people. It is not a concentrated effort to silence any scientists. It is that their findings are not catching the attention of social media.

Actively stifling scientists is different than a social media platform (for example) not wanting to publish their findings.

"banning discussion in the internet public square is different than banning science all together".

Like, yeah, but it's still very bad. I provided evidence in my other topic that something being socially acceptable or popular to talk about has a large impact on what science gets funding.

Public opinion plays an important role into what science people are able to do, and so banning discussion of important issues is obviously insanely problematic.

Have we descending into total authoritarianism? No, but I would hope the bar for when we start saying things are "no beuno" is much much much much below that.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

You haven't been proven right on lab leak yet and I have not seen you admit that "all the people like me who were mocked last year" were not science-loving, healthy skeptic centrists like you are.

I fully admit "All the people who were mocked last year were not science-loving, healthy skeptic centrists".

Many people who were mocked were ignorant, stupid, prone to uncritical thinking, and sometimes racist.

But "It is plausible this came from a lab" has always been a more valid starting assumption than "it is not plausible this came from a lab."

"I'm right" is not the same as "They are investigating to see if I'm right" or "I'm right in specific circumstances"

I'm right in that my claims were accurate, but I do take pains to make sure my claims are not overstated. When one side is saying "it is so nonsense to say it came from a lab, such discussion needs to be censored." the right side of history is a pretty forgiving football field of "yeah no, that's dumb."

---

joe40001 posted...

"banning discussion in the internet public square is different than banning science all together".

Like, yeah, but it's still very bad. I provided evidence in my other topic that something being socially acceptable or popular to talk about has a large impact on what science gets funding.

Public opinion plays an important role into what science people are able to do, and so banning discussion of important issues is obviously insanely problematic.

Have we descending into total authoritarianism? No, but I would hope the bar for when we start saying things are "no beuno" is much much much much below that.

You want to argue the merits of public discourse in comparison to funding, perfectly worthwhile debate. Absolutely. It is a different claim than what you were making before.

Also, the public doesn't GAF about the efficacy of Ivermectin because the vaccines are effective and relatively safe. It has nothing to do with any sort of active censorship of the data and more to do with a total disinterest.

Not many people are arguing about the more subtle points of how one vaccine works in comparison to another unless the side effects are marketedly different. The public does not care. And if the public doesn't care it doesn't get traction online. That isn't about censorship, it is about capitalism.

---

I am being censored he says on a public forum

---

God, people like TC make me feel bad for virologists. Imagine dedicating a good chunk of your life to studying and researching something, only to have a bunch of conspiracy theorists and right wingers hijack the discourse.

It makes me really glad the public doesn't pay attention to anything physics related, because my brain might melt if advancements in physics were met with the same "scruitny" as advancements in medical science

---