So you call for censorship because you cant win any debate? If thats the case ALL your big pharm funded misinformation links would be censored.I know this might be asking much, but do we think it's time to have a strong disinformation policy?
Mods, you're doing well. But... it's getting out of hand, maybe?
You have been banned 100 times with all the pro establishment propaganda if that was the caseYou could argue that blatant disinformation is a form of trolling. Tough thing is assessing sincerity of the poster.
You have been banned 100 times with all the pro establishment propaganda if that was the case
I feel for you. And I want to help any way I can, but you do have a ton more experience than I do.I get the premise. Just not sure how to clearly draw that line. (Story of my life with all moderation). I think if you see these blatant examples, please report them and we'll factor that in - I agree sharing clear disinformation is not something we should promote.
You have been banned 100 times with all the pro establishment propaganda...
So you call for censorship because you cant win any debate? If thats the case ALL your big pharm funded misinformation links would be censored.
another braindead takeI don't think that's the case. @Jason, how many times has @LogGrad98 been banned?
You don't need a million sources when one valid, valued, peer reviewed source based in fact exists.
You're dismissed.
I get the premise. Just not sure how to clearly draw that line. (Story of my life with all moderation). I think if you see these blatant examples, please report them and we'll factor that in - I agree sharing clear disinformation is not something we should promote.
csf is pretty loose rhetorically. Pretty clear he was hypothesizing that a true set of facts would make any ...... regular sort of non-Republican...... a candidate for banning on issues of fidelity to any kind of "truth" measurement. So it's stupid of you to contest his fairly clear meaning with a meaningless fact.I don't think that's the case. @Jason, how many times has @LogGrad98 been banned?
You don't need a million sources when one valid, valued, peer reviewed source based in fact exists.
You're dismissed.
You're close to dismissal yourself. I keep you around because about 1 in 50 posts has a nugget of truth.csf is pretty loose rhetorically. Pretty clear he was hypothesizing that a true set of facts would make any ...... regular sort of non-Republican...... a candidate for banning on issues of fidelity to any kind of "truth" measurement. So it's stupid of you to contest his fairly clear meaning with a meaningless fact.
Your second point demonstrates the real problem here. Anyone can think of maybe at least two reason to disbelieve any fact, any peer-reviewed article, or any government official statement.
If the proponents of a better world really need to silence questioning folks, or even ignoramuses, they have the real problem. Whatever people don't understand should be addressed respectfully with some kind of line of reason and assemblage of whatever good information you have.
Not too much to ask of progressive thinkers, really,.
Even I would see some propriety to curbing flagrant insults, personal attacks, and such, which sometimes I think is true of a lot of us, but if it is j
out-of-hand or say persistent, I say a timeout is appropriate.
So you seem to react too much to other posters if they differ from you. I prefer a live and let live sort of idea of life.You're close to dismissal yourself. I keep you around because about 1 in 50 posts has a nugget of truth.
This is not one of those.
You have agendas in spades. Re; making it more difficult to vote. Don't pretend you don't have an agenda, and don't act like you aren't sucking the change teat yourself. You ask for change, too, but only when you're interested in it.So you seem to react too much to other posters if they differ from you. I prefer a live and let live sort of idea of life.
csf seems to have a burr in his/her saddle, and in general seems to want to take on people confrontationally. I don't that in either case.
I appreciate the mods in here. I don't think I've ever had an infraction. I had a personal discussion some years ago with Jason and it sort of seemed to be his idea that if I really don't like "progress" along the current trajectory maybe I should just leave. I have no delusions about the context of our times. I don't favor abandoning good sense or reason or good principles that generally make life better. I will always be trying to divert people like you from a wrong path. I don't intend to dictate my values. Any change a person may make needs to come from some internal choice personally.
Not big on agendas or bandwagons.
The fundamental reality is that progressive notions are somewhat unrealistic and the people pushing agendas do experience turnover. There is actually no final destiny for "progress". What is real is that people are always going to challenge any status quo and try to change things for something they think is better.
Probably the largest group of people who resist that fundamental reality are the cash cow exploiters of any political movement du jour. they may not care about a final destiny or ideal at all, and people who talk change from their teat are always an annoyance.
It is a given that I will try to engage any poster whom I think might appreciate a discussion.
So who is the disinformation minister? Who decides what is misinformation and what is fact?
Cause I promise you the guy who runs this site, used to hack peoples computers on the old site. Does that make him the celestial disinformation minister?
Extremely dangerous and a flat out fear based lie meant to cause fear and hate.Fellow Jazz fans living in Utah, good luck. I hope you don’t need health care over the next few months. This is what unfettered “freedom” has wrought:
[
established data from the ESTABLISHMENT. established data = bought and paid for garbage from the bureaucrat orthodox doctors.Welcome back.
A single disinformation czar just isn't realistic. But perhaps limiting sources for hot topic issues(re; COVID) to established data shouldn't be out of the question.
How do you challenge established data? Better data. And yeah.. it's that easy.