Why do social media science deniers follow the same format for their posts. 2 big words used slightly incorrectly followed by an incorrect "fact"
Every expert in a highly technical field is definitely wrong and you're the person who cracked it. You may not have a degree in any science field, but don't let that stop you. Cite your sources? 2 podcasts and half a dozen Facebook memes.
This sounds like low-level simping for proopgandists. If the medical profession would just admit to a fraction of what it doesn’t know instead of pretending they are experts - they could stop all of the cowboy doctor Google stuff.
They’re exposed not just for being incompetent and not being able to solve health problems - but being absolutely corrupt in trying to make the public believe in an expertise that doesn’t exist.
People are free to trust them but don’t try telling me or anyone else at this point that we should respect their altar. That game is long over.
It’s Nuremberg Trial time - not time to keep convincing people to volunteer themselves to their bullshit experiments.
You follow someone who's "theories" don't even require proper experiments to disprove. A simple "did you measure the length?" would work. You believe everything that one guy says against every other expert. If you think I'm the simp and you are not, you don't even know what the word simp means.
Follow nobody. Read them all.
But you can’t because the literature is already heavily censored - has been since the Flexner report in 1921 but has gotten exponentially worse since 1971 -
Only to be counterbalanced by the internet, which lead to new forms of censorship. Understanding this is crucial for this debate.
Following “experts” will get you dead and broke with a lot of friend and family support
I’d check out “The Real Anthony Fauci”.
It’s a book - not a tweet. It’s a long book with a lot of references that most internet warriors won’t take the time to read.
There are factual assertions that are supported by footnotes - one can judge for themselves how much they wish to validate these assertions.
There are also biased opinions that one can judge a man like RFK’s vantage point.
But at the heart of it all is a reflex to invalidate the messenger, as though that’s some superseding move of the scientific method
Presumably we’re connected here to a freedom movement - that requires that people be allowed to choose their affairs for themselves.
The attitude that people are too dumb to manage their own lives is not coherent with freedom. It could be true but if I believed that I wouldn’t be here - I’d be at war defending my blue check.
I want to believe that people are smart enough to manage their own lives... Full grown adults who can't understand the basics of how respiratory viruses spread even though we teach it in kindergarten gives me pause. Take a minute to explain it to them and it becomes clear they can't separate someone being an authoritarian dick from their statement about how a disease spreads, a basic logical fallacy.
If you want to be a big kid anarchist, grow up and do the right thing. Don't let one government official turn you into a blind reactionary. I don't care what the government laws are. Doesn't mean a thing if they agree or disagree with my existing position. If you are changing your beliefs because the law changed, to align with or against them doesn't matter, you are an NPC.
Hmmm. Just because our govt teaches us something in Kindergarten doesn’t make it fact - that pretty basic right? You mentioned theories needing to be falsified in your first reply. Germ Theory is unproven but there is a Nobel recognized rubric for doing so. (Hint: it’s Koch’s Postulates and any debate on whether a virus is contagious should be discussed in these lines - not whether our government mandated education for 5 year olds told us so)
LOL. 30 seconds reading about Koch's postulates.
1. They cannot be applied to viruses.
2. They require that all of evolution is wrong.
3. They go against the latter discovery of asymptomatic carriers in both bacteria caused infections and viruses. Again, by definition do not apply to viruses anyway.
I wasn't thinking about Covid deniers in my first post anyway. I was thinking about people who think wifi or cell phones make you sick.
Sign me up as someone who has high conviction on non-native EMFs being biologically damaging. I explained some lay-science in an earlier pod episode but really the denial of this assertion isn’t based in science any more than the vax deniers.
This is a long conversation- not gonna be won on Twitter or here. My time preference for it is low for people I know and want to discuss it in good faith.
