Three Times
-
@horace said in Three Times:
"Control the narrative" is a conspiracy theory? Really? People bending truth in order to control a narrative is a conspiracy theory?
It is when that's the default position, and other more plausible things like, oh I don't know, the scientist actually believes what he's saying. Which by the way doesn't exclude the possibility that the scientist is wrong.
Why is it so predictable who will or will not read into these posts in certain ways, if the onus is entirely on the writer?
I never would have thought that you, of all people, Horace, would get on the Death of the Writer bandwagon. That's the most woke position to possibly take.
And why, if someone says "I advocate for everybody to get vaccinated", is that not enough to satisfy you that they advocate for everybody to get vaccinated?
"Oh no I like Jews and everything, they're great. But here, let's talk for three hours on the economic collapse of Germany post-WWI and how that was mainly due to certain minorities and demographics."
And no, I'm not making a moral correlation there. Just pointing out what weighted messaging can do over time.
tl;dr: Sometimes I wonder about the messaging here is all. I'm not calling anyone an anti-vaxxer, I'm saying it sure sounds like it sometimes. Those two aren't the same.
@aqua-letifer said in Three Times:
I never would have thought that you, of all people, Horace, would get on the Death of the Writer bandwagon. That's the most woke position to possibly take.
Because as a purely objective person with a free mind unencumbered by the coerced group-think of pop culture, I can roam freely across ideas that seem wildly disparate to others.
Education is extremely important.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Three Times:
@horace said in Three Times:
Say, Loki, can you name anybody here who advocates against people getting vaccinated?
When folks create post after post illustrating how common breakthrough infections are (and how wrong all the doctors and scientists have been because of a "control the narrative" conspiracy theory), defending nutters who believe the virus is a fiction, and constantly defend the choice of not getting vaccinated rather than stress the public health risks of not getting a shot, all without any qualifying statements at all, I think the insinuation is rather strong.
If none of that adds up to "anti-vaxxine," fine. Then it's poor communication.
No, it's more of a rebellion against religion. Some of y'all have the COVID Holy Ghost in extreme measures. Most likely, because you're scared shitless of the disease. Scared is ok, but suspension of skepticism in a volatile situation is asinine.
The science of vaccine effectiveness, reinfection rates, possible alternative treatment therapies, masking, viral load vs. virility...Those are just a few things where hard facts are not always available. Such is medicine in the face of any new disease.
Pardon me, if I don't always trust the numbers. Maybe it's because I've been part of the process of generating such numbers in the past. Problems can include bad data (of which we gave a crapload, especially from early in the process), data being skewed by people with an agenda and incomplete data.
@jolly said in Three Times:
No, it's more of a rebellion against religion. Some of y'all have the COVID Holy Ghost in extreme measures. Most likely, because you're scared shitless of the disease. Scared is ok, but suspension of skepticism in a volatile situation is asinine.
I think it's similar to Horace's favorite example of well-to-do whites being the most woke among us. Lack of experience almost always breeds wild perceptions. I don't exclude myself in that, that's probably true. But just to clarify:
- I'm not a massive Fauci fan, I just don't understand the constant attempts to bring him down. What difference does it make?
- I don't think current vaccines are a silver bullet. On a societal level, I think we're probably quite fucked for the next 3 months. But the vaccines seem to lessen the chances of infection and serious infection, so why the hell not. This isn't a Guillain-Barré situation and these aren't the fucking Tuskegee experiments.
- I now believe, as you seem to do, that treatment would be a more robust solution. Unless something crazy comes out of the vaccine industry.
Pardon me, if I don't always trust the numbers. Maybe it's because I've been part of the process of generating such numbers in the past. Problems can include bad data (of which we gave a crapload, especially from early in the process), data being skewed by people with an agenda and incomplete data.
Fair enough. And without knowing folks like your co-workers in any way, my intuition tells me they aren't as politically-minded as those staffing Biden's west wing. So I try to get information from the former where I can, and ignore everything the latter says as a matter of process.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Three Times:
I never would have thought that you, of all people, Horace, would get on the Death of the Writer bandwagon. That's the most woke position to possibly take.
Because as a purely objective person with a free mind unencumbered by the coerced group-think of pop culture, I can roam freely across ideas that seem wildly disparate to others.
@horace said in Three Times:
@aqua-letifer said in Three Times:
I never would have thought that you, of all people, Horace, would get on the Death of the Writer bandwagon. That's the most woke position to possibly take.
Because as a purely objective person with a free mind unencumbered by the coerced group-think of pop culture, I can roam freely across ideas that seem wildly disparate to others.
Have fun with that, then. It's one of the most ridiculous ideas to ever afflict the humanities and encourages the practice of disappearing up one's own arsehole. I'd strongly suggest you reconsider.
-
@horace said in Three Times:
@aqua-letifer said in Three Times:
I never would have thought that you, of all people, Horace, would get on the Death of the Writer bandwagon. That's the most woke position to possibly take.
Because as a purely objective person with a free mind unencumbered by the coerced group-think of pop culture, I can roam freely across ideas that seem wildly disparate to others.
Have fun with that, then. It's one of the most ridiculous ideas to ever afflict the humanities and encourages the practice of disappearing up one's own arsehole. I'd strongly suggest you reconsider.
@aqua-letifer said in Three Times:
@horace said in Three Times:
@aqua-letifer said in Three Times:
I never would have thought that you, of all people, Horace, would get on the Death of the Writer bandwagon. That's the most woke position to possibly take.
Because as a purely objective person with a free mind unencumbered by the coerced group-think of pop culture, I can roam freely across ideas that seem wildly disparate to others.
Have fun with that, then. It's one of the most ridiculous ideas to ever afflict the humanities and encourages the practice of disappearing up one's own arsehole. I'd strongly suggest you reconsider.
That people read into stuff based on their own stuff going on in their own heads? I doubt that's a new or controversial idea. It probably reminded you of something that you find ridiculous.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Three Times:
@horace said in Three Times:
@aqua-letifer said in Three Times:
I never would have thought that you, of all people, Horace, would get on the Death of the Writer bandwagon. That's the most woke position to possibly take.
Because as a purely objective person with a free mind unencumbered by the coerced group-think of pop culture, I can roam freely across ideas that seem wildly disparate to others.
Have fun with that, then. It's one of the most ridiculous ideas to ever afflict the humanities and encourages the practice of disappearing up one's own arsehole. I'd strongly suggest you reconsider.
That people read into stuff based on their own stuff going on in their own heads? I doubt that's a new or controversial idea. It probably reminded you of something that you find ridiculous.
@horace said in Three Times:
That people read into stuff based on their own stuff going on in their own heads? I doubt that's a new or controversial idea. It probably reminded you of something that you find ridiculous.
No, that the writer is off the hook when it comes to how his own words are interpreted.
-
@horace said in Three Times:
That people read into stuff based on their own stuff going on in their own heads? I doubt that's a new or controversial idea. It probably reminded you of something that you find ridiculous.
No, that the writer is off the hook when it comes to how his own words are interpreted.
@aqua-letifer said in Three Times:
@horace said in Three Times:
That people read into stuff based on their own stuff going on in their own heads? I doubt that's a new or controversial idea. It probably reminded you of something that you find ridiculous.
No, that the writer is off the hook when it comes to how his own words are interpreted.
Certainly that is not the case.
personally, if I were to question the specific data regarding effectiveness of COVID vaccines here, I would go into it with full awareness that there are those who will read it and see a dog whistle for anti-vaxxers and maybe tribal Trump supporters. And I know they would like me and respect me less for it. If I thought the question bore consideration, I would probably still ask it.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Three Times:
I never would have thought that you, of all people, Horace, would get on the Death of the Writer bandwagon. That's the most woke position to possibly take.
Because as a purely objective person with a free mind unencumbered by the coerced group-think of pop culture, I can roam freely across ideas that seem wildly disparate to others.
@horace said in Three Times:
Because as a purely objective person with a free mind unencumbered by the coerced group-think of pop culture, I can roam freely across ideas that seem wildly disparate to others.
Well, somebody's chewing illicit root vegetables.
-
@loki said in Three Times:
I think Horace already said everyone was all in here on vaccines.
Not to request accuracy from you, but I probably asked you to substantiate your claim that there are those here advocating against vaccination.
Say, Loki, can you name anybody here who advocates against people getting vaccinated?
@horace said in Three Times:
@loki said in Three Times:
I think Horace already said everyone was all in here on vaccines.
Not to request accuracy from you, but I probably asked you to substantiate your claim that there are those here advocating against vaccination.
Say, Loki, can you name anybody here who advocates against people getting vaccinated?
Never suggested it but I can see how one might have thought that. I also think all of my “offending” posts are on threads where as Aqua points out the post is questioning the vaccines in various ways.
-
@horace said in Three Times:
@loki said in Three Times:
I think Horace already said everyone was all in here on vaccines.
Not to request accuracy from you, but I probably asked you to substantiate your claim that there are those here advocating against vaccination.
Say, Loki, can you name anybody here who advocates against people getting vaccinated?
Never suggested it but I can see how one might have thought that. I also think all of my “offending” posts are on threads where as Aqua points out the post is questioning the vaccines in various ways.
@loki said in Three Times:
I also think all of my “offending” posts are on threads where as Aqua points out the post is questioning the vaccines in various ways.
Yeah, I get it. You read into the post and decide that the message will convince people not to get vaccinated, even if the post is clearly not about trying to convince people not to get vaccinated. Then you respond to the message you inferred, as if it was what was written. None of this is complicated, I am sure we all understand it. You're the only one who has to contort to rationalize any of it.
-
@loki said in Three Times:
I also think all of my “offending” posts are on threads where as Aqua points out the post is questioning the vaccines in various ways.
Yeah, I get it. You read into the post and decide that the message will convince people not to get vaccinated, even if the post is clearly not about trying to convince people not to get vaccinated. Then you respond to the message you inferred, as if it was what was written. None of this is complicated, I am sure we all understand it. You're the only one who has to contort to rationalize any of it.
@horace said in Three Times:
@loki said in Three Times:
I also think all of my “offending” posts are on threads where as Aqua points out the post is questioning the vaccines in various ways.
Yeah, I get it. You read into the post and decide that the message will convince people not to get vaccinated, even if the post is clearly not about trying to convince people not to get vaccinated. Then you respond to the message you inferred, as if it was what was written. None of this is complicated, I am sure we all understand it. You're the only one who has to contort to rationalize any of it.
The easiest way to deal with this is for people to simply put what they mean by posting what they post. Also if a reply is not relevant to their intent they can easily do that.
Otherwise we are left with passive aggressive behavior.
-
@horace said in Three Times:
@loki said in Three Times:
I also think all of my “offending” posts are on threads where as Aqua points out the post is questioning the vaccines in various ways.
Yeah, I get it. You read into the post and decide that the message will convince people not to get vaccinated, even if the post is clearly not about trying to convince people not to get vaccinated. Then you respond to the message you inferred, as if it was what was written. None of this is complicated, I am sure we all understand it. You're the only one who has to contort to rationalize any of it.
The easiest way to deal with this is for people to simply put what they mean by posting what they post. Also if a reply is not relevant to their intent they can easily do that.
Otherwise we are left with passive aggressive behavior.
@loki said in Three Times:
@horace said in Three Times:
@loki said in Three Times:
I also think all of my “offending” posts are on threads where as Aqua points out the post is questioning the vaccines in various ways.
Yeah, I get it. You read into the post and decide that the message will convince people not to get vaccinated, even if the post is clearly not about trying to convince people not to get vaccinated. Then you respond to the message you inferred, as if it was what was written. None of this is complicated, I am sure we all understand it. You're the only one who has to contort to rationalize any of it.
The easiest way to deal with this is for people to simply put what they mean by posting what they post. Also if a reply is not relevant to their intent they can easily do that.
Otherwise we are left with passive aggressive behavior.
Passive aggressive behavior like broad implications that everybody else can't see reality, that their arguments are totally refuted by basic facts, that no matter how basic and factual a claim is, it'll get ripped to shreds? And then not naming names of those responsible for this insanity, or even the specific arguments or claims being referred to? Yes, you are 100% guilty of that chicanery.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Three Times:
@horace said in Three Times:
Say, Loki, can you name anybody here who advocates against people getting vaccinated?
When folks create post after post illustrating how common breakthrough infections are (and how wrong all the doctors and scientists have been because of a "control the narrative" conspiracy theory), defending nutters who believe the virus is a fiction, and constantly defend the choice of not getting vaccinated rather than stress the public health risks of not getting a shot, all without any qualifying statements at all, I think the insinuation is rather strong.
If none of that adds up to "anti-vaxxine," fine. Then it's poor communication.
No, it's more of a rebellion against religion. Some of y'all have the COVID Holy Ghost in extreme measures. Most likely, because you're scared shitless of the disease. Scared is ok, but suspension of skepticism in a volatile situation is asinine.
The science of vaccine effectiveness, reinfection rates, possible alternative treatment therapies, masking, viral load vs. virility...Those are just a few things where hard facts are not always available. Such is medicine in the face of any new disease.
Pardon me, if I don't always trust the numbers. Maybe it's because I've been part of the process of generating such numbers in the past. Problems can include bad data (of which we gave a crapload, especially from early in the process), data being skewed by people with an agenda and incomplete data.
-
@loki said in Three Times:
@horace said in Three Times:
@loki said in Three Times:
I also think all of my “offending” posts are on threads where as Aqua points out the post is questioning the vaccines in various ways.
Yeah, I get it. You read into the post and decide that the message will convince people not to get vaccinated, even if the post is clearly not about trying to convince people not to get vaccinated. Then you respond to the message you inferred, as if it was what was written. None of this is complicated, I am sure we all understand it. You're the only one who has to contort to rationalize any of it.
The easiest way to deal with this is for people to simply put what they mean by posting what they post. Also if a reply is not relevant to their intent they can easily do that.
Otherwise we are left with passive aggressive behavior.
Passive aggressive behavior like broad implications that everybody else can't see reality, that their arguments are totally refuted by basic facts, that no matter how basic and factual a claim is, it'll get ripped to shreds? And then not naming names of those responsible for this insanity, or even the specific arguments or claims being referred to? Yes, you are 100% guilty of that chicanery.
@horace said in Three Times:
@loki said in Three Times:
@horace said in Three Times:
@loki said in Three Times:
I also think all of my “offending” posts are on threads where as Aqua points out the post is questioning the vaccines in various ways.
Yeah, I get it. You read into the post and decide that the message will convince people not to get vaccinated, even if the post is clearly not about trying to convince people not to get vaccinated. Then you respond to the message you inferred, as if it was what was written. None of this is complicated, I am sure we all understand it. You're the only one who has to contort to rationalize any of it.
The easiest way to deal with this is for people to simply put what they mean by posting what they post. Also if a reply is not relevant to their intent they can easily do that.
Otherwise we are left with passive aggressive behavior.
Passive aggressive behavior like broad implications that everybody else can't see reality, that their arguments are totally refuted by basic facts, that no matter how basic and factual a claim is, it'll get ripped to shreds? And then not naming names of those responsible for this insanity, or even the specific arguments or claims being referred to? Yes, you are 100% guilty of that chicanery.
You got all that from my post here earlier today? Or posts over the weekend? Which ones?
-
@horace said in Three Times:
@loki said in Three Times:
@horace said in Three Times:
@loki said in Three Times:
I also think all of my “offending” posts are on threads where as Aqua points out the post is questioning the vaccines in various ways.
Yeah, I get it. You read into the post and decide that the message will convince people not to get vaccinated, even if the post is clearly not about trying to convince people not to get vaccinated. Then you respond to the message you inferred, as if it was what was written. None of this is complicated, I am sure we all understand it. You're the only one who has to contort to rationalize any of it.
The easiest way to deal with this is for people to simply put what they mean by posting what they post. Also if a reply is not relevant to their intent they can easily do that.
Otherwise we are left with passive aggressive behavior.
Passive aggressive behavior like broad implications that everybody else can't see reality, that their arguments are totally refuted by basic facts, that no matter how basic and factual a claim is, it'll get ripped to shreds? And then not naming names of those responsible for this insanity, or even the specific arguments or claims being referred to? Yes, you are 100% guilty of that chicanery.
You got all that from my post here earlier today? Or posts over the weekend? Which ones?
@loki said in Three Times:
@horace said in Three Times:
@loki said in Three Times:
@horace said in Three Times:
@loki said in Three Times:
I also think all of my “offending” posts are on threads where as Aqua points out the post is questioning the vaccines in various ways.
Yeah, I get it. You read into the post and decide that the message will convince people not to get vaccinated, even if the post is clearly not about trying to convince people not to get vaccinated. Then you respond to the message you inferred, as if it was what was written. None of this is complicated, I am sure we all understand it. You're the only one who has to contort to rationalize any of it.
The easiest way to deal with this is for people to simply put what they mean by posting what they post. Also if a reply is not relevant to their intent they can easily do that.
Otherwise we are left with passive aggressive behavior.
Passive aggressive behavior like broad implications that everybody else can't see reality, that their arguments are totally refuted by basic facts, that no matter how basic and factual a claim is, it'll get ripped to shreds? And then not naming names of those responsible for this insanity, or even the specific arguments or claims being referred to? Yes, you are 100% guilty of that chicanery.
You got all that from my post here earlier today? Or posts over the weekend? Which ones?
No, neither. Before then. You can probably search "rip to shreds" for an example.
-
@loki said in Three Times:
@horace said in Three Times:
@loki said in Three Times:
@horace said in Three Times:
@loki said in Three Times:
I also think all of my “offending” posts are on threads where as Aqua points out the post is questioning the vaccines in various ways.
Yeah, I get it. You read into the post and decide that the message will convince people not to get vaccinated, even if the post is clearly not about trying to convince people not to get vaccinated. Then you respond to the message you inferred, as if it was what was written. None of this is complicated, I am sure we all understand it. You're the only one who has to contort to rationalize any of it.
The easiest way to deal with this is for people to simply put what they mean by posting what they post. Also if a reply is not relevant to their intent they can easily do that.
Otherwise we are left with passive aggressive behavior.
Passive aggressive behavior like broad implications that everybody else can't see reality, that their arguments are totally refuted by basic facts, that no matter how basic and factual a claim is, it'll get ripped to shreds? And then not naming names of those responsible for this insanity, or even the specific arguments or claims being referred to? Yes, you are 100% guilty of that chicanery.
You got all that from my post here earlier today? Or posts over the weekend? Which ones?
No, neither. Before then. You can probably search "rip to shreds" for an example.
@horace said in Three Times:
@loki said in Three Times:
@horace said in Three Times:
@loki said in Three Times:
@horace said in Three Times:
@loki said in Three Times:
I also think all of my “offending” posts are on threads where as Aqua points out the post is questioning the vaccines in various ways.
Yeah, I get it. You read into the post and decide that the message will convince people not to get vaccinated, even if the post is clearly not about trying to convince people not to get vaccinated. Then you respond to the message you inferred, as if it was what was written. None of this is complicated, I am sure we all understand it. You're the only one who has to contort to rationalize any of it.
The easiest way to deal with this is for people to simply put what they mean by posting what they post. Also if a reply is not relevant to their intent they can easily do that.
Otherwise we are left with passive aggressive behavior.
Passive aggressive behavior like broad implications that everybody else can't see reality, that their arguments are totally refuted by basic facts, that no matter how basic and factual a claim is, it'll get ripped to shreds? And then not naming names of those responsible for this insanity, or even the specific arguments or claims being referred to? Yes, you are 100% guilty of that chicanery.
You got all that from my post here earlier today? Or posts over the weekend? Which ones?
No, neither. Before then. You can probably search "rip to shreds" for an example.
Before then. So I wrote a post that acknowledged strong opinions and that I would change my posting style. I will be happy to defend my posts at face value but I think you made your point already about my personality several times and I don’t think any more reinforcement is necessary.
-
I will contribute to this thread when I have some time… Not ignoring or skipping, just swamped…
-
I will contribute to this thread when I have some time… Not ignoring or skipping, just swamped…
@lufins-dad said in Three Times:
I will contribute to this thread when I have some time… Not ignoring or skipping, just swamped…
Sell! Sell! Sell!!!
