Why does this make me smile so hard?

I think there's some confusion here with censorship and being debunked. It seems anyone these days that gets debunked, cries censorship. Grow up. On top of that, context seems to almost always be lacking. There really is no sense in arguing with trolls.

omphaloskepsis wrote: suitkees wrote: ^^ Oh Cindy, please, try to do some comprehensive reading. I was hesitating to add that word "disputed" into my phrase, because I was afraid it could function as a red flag on a bull, and unfortunately it did... I'm sorry I distracted you with that, but I wasn't talking about facts, and I definitely don't want to drag this discussion, again, into a new covid/masks or alike one, especially because you are completely beside my point about disinformation and the claims cosmicvibration was making about that. CosmicVibration wrote: The censorship that was enacted on so called “disinformation” is a direct threat to democracy.  Ironically, a great deal of “disinformation” was proven to be true.    Democracy cannot exist unless there is freedom of speech in public discourse! Research, research, research, statistics, more research... You took out my point regarding his second claim by bringing forward some anecdotal claims that add nothing to the discussion at hand about the claim that "a great deal of "disinformation" was proven not to be true". I have doubts about this claim, but I haven't done the research necessary to either prove or disprove this claim. Neither have you, I think, and bringing forward a couple of examples of the ocean of hundreds of thousands of disinformation occurrences, doesn't add anything to the original claim that "a great deal of "disinformation was proven not to be true". I'm very curious to know if there is any substantial research on the disinformation claims (those hundreds of thousands) and veracity of them and again you come with just a couple of examples and claims - and yes, I consider them very disputable, but that is besides the point I was making and not the subject here. Giving examples is not scientific research. Statistics are not based on just a couple of examples, but on - more or less thorough and thus more or less disputable - research methods. As long as statements as those I reacted to are not referenced by some - preferably thorough - research, then they have no validity whatsoever and are just nourishing the disinformation we are suffering from. The only Disinformation I'm talking about is the kind that is CENSORED.     I've been doing stats problems since 1993.  I've took and made two A's in University level stats courses, plus the stats we applied in Biology. I'm an RN with a biology degree. I've take/taken care of Covid patients. In the mid/late 90's, I worked for four years in an Epidemiology lab.   When Biden says, "If you take Vax, you will NOT get Covid." ... You don't need stats or research to prove that's what Biden said.  A video will do nicely.  When Government claims that Hunter Laptop was a Russia disinformation operation...You don't need stats to prove that.   Multiple media articles proving that claim will do.  When Government and Hunter Biden admit that the Laptop is real....You don't need stats to prove that. Their quotes admitting such a thing will do.   Do you know how to do statistics?  Could you explain how to do a T-test?  I'll give you a hint... A T-test is a statistical test used to compare the means of two groups. Since you keep mentioning "statistics" ...you can tell me how to run a T-test?  The only Disinformation I'm talking about is the kind that is CENSORED.  Get it? Got it? Good.  I don't care about lies/disinformation that is not censored. Disinformation and lies are protected under the first amendment. That's my point.   The first amendment protects people -that the government hates-  right to say things the government hates.  Does the first amendment work today?  No.  The government censors anyone they want.  That's reality.

^Classic Danny Kay response.   Man, you're old !

suitkees wrote: ^^ Oh Cindy, please, try to do some comprehensive reading. I was hesitating to add that word "disputed" into my phrase, because I was afraid it could function as a red flag on a bull, and unfortunately it did... I'm sorry I distracted you with that, but I wasn't talking about facts, and I definitely don't want to drag this discussion, again, into a new covid/masks or alike one, especially because you are completely beside my point about disinformation and the claims cosmicvibration was making about that. CosmicVibration wrote: The censorship that was enacted on so called “disinformation” is a direct threat to democracy.  Ironically, a great deal of “disinformation” was proven to be true.    Democracy cannot exist unless there is freedom of speech in public discourse! Research, research, research, statistics, more research... You took out my point regarding his second claim by bringing forward some anecdotal claims that add nothing to the discussion at hand about the claim that "a great deal of "disinformation" was proven not to be true". I have doubts about this claim, but I haven't done the research necessary to either prove or disprove this claim. Neither have you, I think, and bringing forward a couple of examples of the ocean of hundreds of thousands of disinformation occurrences, doesn't add anything to the original claim that "a great deal of "disinformation was proven not to be true". I'm very curious to know if there is any substantial research on the disinformation claims (those hundreds of thousands) and veracity of them and again you come with just a couple of examples and claims - and yes, I consider them very disputable, but that is besides the point I was making and not the subject here. Giving examples is not scientific research. Statistics are not based on just a couple of examples, but on - more or less thorough and thus more or less disputable - research methods. As long as statements as those I reacted to are not referenced by some - preferably thorough - research, then they have no validity whatsoever and are just nourishing the disinformation we are suffering from.

Edited by omphaloskepsis - June 20 2023 at 13:09

^^ Oh Cindy, please, try to do some comprehensive reading. I was hesitating to add that word "disputed" into my phrase, because I was afraid it could function as a red flag on a bull, and unfortunately it did... I'm sorry I distracted you with that, but I wasn't talking about facts, and I definitely don't want to drag this discussion, again, into a new covid/masks or alike one, especially because you are completely beside my point about disinformation and the claims cosmicvibration was making about that.

CosmicVibration wrote: The censorship that was enacted on so called “disinformation” is a direct threat to democracy.  Ironically, a great deal of “disinformation” was proven to be true.    Democracy cannot exist unless there is freedom of speech in public discourse!

Research, research, research, statistics, more research... You took out my point regarding his second claim by bringing forward some anecdotal claims that add nothing to the discussion at hand about the claim that "a great deal of "disinformation" was proven not to be true". I have doubts about this claim, but I haven't done the research necessary to either prove or disprove this claim. Neither have you, I think, and bringing forward a couple of examples of the ocean of hundreds of thousands of disinformation occurrences, doesn't add anything to the original claim that "a great deal of "disinformation was proven not to be true".

suitkees wrote: omphaloskepsis wrote: [QUOTE=suitkees][QUOTE=CosmicVibration]The censorship that was enacted on so called “disinformation” is a direct threat to democracy.  Ironically, a great deal of “disinformation” was proven to be true.    Democracy cannot exist unless there is freedom of speech in public discourse! This is exactly what I was not asking for: (statistical) research is not about just giving a couple of examples, as you did here. Three - disputable - examples (and I don't doubt you have a couple of others) out of the probably hundreds of thousands of disinformation occurrences is a rather weak sample to base a hypothesis on, but it seems to suffice to you. Remember that Trump alone made more than 30.000 false or misleading statements during his four year reign (and this is fact-checked). Giving examples is not the same as giving research results. This makes your conclusion rather void.

Edited by omphaloskepsis - June 20 2023 at 11:56

^ Don't agree. You just posted a link without making a point, so everybody else tries to make a point...

omphaloskepsis wrote: suitkees wrote: CosmicVibration wrote: The censorship that was enacted on so called “disinformation” is a direct threat to democracy.  Ironically, a great deal of “disinformation” was proven to be true.    Democracy cannot exist unless there is freedom of speech in public discourse! These are quite interesting statements. Regarding the second one ("a great deal of “disinformation” was proven to be true"), I guess this is more a hunch than based on (statistical) research. (What percentage of what was labelled as "disinformation" was proven not to be that, what percentage was proven exactly to be that; what authority labels something as disinformation and how much of that labelling is merely based on opinion, etc. etc.?) Actually, a lot of disinformation emerges as a hunch taken as a fact. My hunch is that most of what was labelled as disinformation was exactly that (unless it was Trump & co. who labelled it). <snip> There are many instants where the disinformation ended up being true. Here are three.  1. Folks censored for claiming that Vaccines would NOT prevent Covid.   They were right. That's been proven.  Millions of people who got the vaccine also contracted Covid.  President Biden claimed you cannot get Covid if you get a vaccine.  2. Folks censored for claiming that Masks would not prevent Covid.  They were right again.  Fauci flip-flopped on this issue several times.  3. People claimed Hunter Laptop was the real deal.  The Government claimed Hunter's laptop was a Russian disinformation operation and not real   The government lied and the folks who claimed Hunter Laptop was real...were right. Even the FBI admits it now. Hunter Biden admits it.  See Elon Musk Twitter File releases for more proof of Censorship of people who went against approved narrative.  I could name many other instances where disinformation was not disinformation. The scary thing? The attacks on disinformation were actually the disinformation.

suitkees wrote: CosmicVibration wrote: The censorship that was enacted on so called “disinformation” is a direct threat to democracy.  Ironically, a great deal of “disinformation” was proven to be true.    Democracy cannot exist unless there is freedom of speech in public discourse! These are quite interesting statements. Regarding the second one ("a great deal of “disinformation” was proven to be true"), I guess this is more a hunch than based on (statistical) research. (What percentage of what was labelled as "disinformation" was proven not to be that, what percentage was proven exactly to be that; what authority labels something as disinformation and how much of that labelling is merely based on opinion, etc. etc.?) Actually, a lot of disinformation emerges as a hunch taken as a fact. My hunch is that most of what was labelled as disinformation was exactly that (unless it was Trump & co. who labelled it). The first and third statements are  - from my very European viewpoint - a typical US American stance, compared to the dominating European take on things (both regarding media and legislation). Now, my hunch is that it is even more a right wing/libertarian stance, than necessarily a general US American stance, but I'll leave that to you, USAns, to dicsuss that amongst you, because - as said - this is just my hunch and not based on facts. That "democracy cannot exist unless there is freedom of speech in public discourse", and I understand that you mean absolute freedom, is exactly what makes the US democracy so weak and vulnerable. In my opinion, if it means to allow the freedom of deliberately misinforming the public, you are just undermining democracy. In Europe, public discourse is much more regulated than in the US of A, and I'm very glad it is: media and politicians can get trialed before justice or before other regulatory institutions if they are deliberately misleading the public. That, in my view, is an important safeguard for democracy. (Note: in French we would use the word "garde-fou", literally meaning "keep/save from the mad"). What you call "censorship", we call that "regulation". It would be censorship if this regulation would go beyond the legislative and regulatory frameworks. Another point from your posts, regarding the "matrix": you'll have to define what it is to give it some coherent meaning. To me, it is a film trilogy; otherwise it is just like God: it only exists if you believe in it.

Edited by omphaloskepsis - June 20 2023 at 08:43

^



I actually enjoyed it more than the 2nd and the 3rd. Yet, it would be best if the original remained the only one.

suitkees wrote: Another point from your posts, regarding the "matrix": you'll have to define what it is to give it some coherent meaning. To me, it is a film trilogy; otherwise it is just like God: it only exists if you believe in it.

You are wrong! How can you be wrong about such a serious issue? It is a film quadrology now! I cannot stress how important this issue is. Now, I'm mad!!!  (Well, I guess I'm mad, but not in that sense. )