• 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle
  • Did you actually do your research on that “deworming drug”? It’s been used to treat a hell of a lot more than parasites. That is just its most common use.

    This has always been funny to me as someone who actually works in healthcare and regularly reads scientific studies. Of all the things you could choose to hate Trump over, the example you give is one that plenty of people in the scientific community considered to be a treatment avenue worth researching.

    Damn, the media propaganda machine is effective. Trump could run into a burning building to save a litter of puppies and they’d still find a way to make everyone hate the guy. It’s impressive.


  • PortableHotpocket@lemmy.catoMemes@lemmy.mlLosing the argument because DDOS
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They probably would have just called you names instead of openly engaging with your ideas. That’s the norm in my experience. I sometimes wonder why I bother posting at all.

    Then again, I do get some traction, and some representation of ideas outside the common narratives is better than none. But it does seem like if you aren’t in lockstep with the popular narratives, you get a cascade of downvotes just for entertaining unpopular ideas.

    People don’t want you to think for yourself. They just want you to parrot their beliefs back to them and give them affirmation.






  • PortableHotpocket@lemmy.catoFunny@sh.itjust.worksDevil's advocate
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Playing devil’s advocate only makes you look like an asshole if the person you’re talking to has a closed mind. The entire purpose is to bridge the gap between two sides in an argument by acknowledging the positives of something they disagree with.

    In essence, if someone has to play devil’s advocate with you, you’re probably the asshole. Otherwise you would be able to relate to and understand people who disagree with you without treating them like a monster.

    A good example of where this can help is in politics. Political discussion is full of people talking past each other instead of trying to understand each other. If you could understand each other, it would be much easier to find compromise, which would make everyone feel heard and lead to the most reasonable outcomes when you consider the voice of all parties. But it’s much easier to label your opponent an idiot or a devil than to grapple with their actual problems.


  • This is a semantic argument made to ignore the issue. The reality is that social media platforms effectively have become the “town square” where ideas are shared. Stifling legal speech in that environment is very effective censorship of ideas.

    You can argue that corporations have that right because they own the network. I disagree. Curation of what can be said on their platform turns them into a publisher, not a communications provider. Any lawyer active in that space could tell you how insanely detrimental it would be for that distinction to be made, at least in the U.S.

    Imagine your phone company deciding you can’t say certain words to other people using their service without facing dropped calls, suspensions of service, or being banned. All because your legal speech goes against the morality of the majority.

    That’s essentially what social media does at the moment. They are legally defined as, and receive the benefits of, a communications service. But they are acting like a publisher, deciding what is and is not allowed to be said. It’s a serious problem.


  • Do you believe they should receive immediate massive military aid? Because we’re basically in a Mexican stand off with Russia and China right now. As soon as we pass a line for what intervention Russia is willing to tolerate, we will start a cascade of events that will lead to WW3, and possible nuclear war. Most of us don’t want to see the planet nuked into extinction over a small war on the other side of the planet.

    Granted, I think war is inevitable. But that doesn’t mean we should rush into it. The bloodshed will get exponentially worse the minute this war becomes bigger than Russia v Ukraine, and we’re already very close to the tipping point in my estimation.


  • Why should a creator be responsible for the voiced opinions of their fans? That standard makes no sense no matter how you slice it. A creator’s job isn’t to police their audience, it’s to provide information/entertainment.

    Just because he has the power to censor people you don’t like doesn’t mean he should, or that it’s a reasonable ask. Instead of passively alienating you by not acting, censoring those people would actively alienate them. He’s much better off letting individuals take responsibility for their own comments, rather than joining any given side’s thought-police.

    As soon as you create the standard that you are responsible for what your fans say and do, you’ve lost. You can immediately be held accountable for the speech of the worst of them, and good luck regulating that.


  • We’re always finding ways to interact with the world and perceive it from a different dimension/angle. This comic isn’t so much inaccurate as it is exaggerated.

    I’m pretty sure this is exactly how scientists felt the first time they developed microscopes, electron microscopes, and other technology that lets us experience the world in a different way. A mixture of “woah” and “mind-blown”.




  • PortableHotpocket@lemmy.catoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Take a minute to go and familiarize yourself with the history of the lobotomy, then you can tell me the scientific community is above reproach.

    Speaking as someone who is part of that community, bunk science gets through all the time. Especially when politics enters the fray.

    Do you have any idea how many criticisms from within the healthcare and medical research fields were censored so that people like you would believe there was only one true opinion? Of course you don’t, because you probably got all of your news on the matter from a sanitized downstream source.

    Think for yourself. There were convoluting factors in the way the covid vaccines were developed that left questions of long term side effects completely unanswered and up in the air. If you don’t understand why this vaccine was a special case to be concerned about, that’s okay, I don’t expect you to understand as a layman. But actual medical doctors were being censored off of social media and in professional environments for voicing legitimate concerns. If you’re okay with that, I think you’re making a tribal argument, not an intellectually honest one.