A Political Thread pt. 2

[McTallshort]

I wouldn't worry about it he accused me of the same.
Is there a measels outbreak - yes.
Is there an issue with 95% being vaccinated to achieve heard immunity- yes.
Was the US declared measels free in 2000 - yes
Is there an issue with people not being vaccinated- yes.

All misinformation apparently.
Despite being reported by the BBC and AP News.

But not the Financial times (makes all the difference)

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Is Mennon in South America?

There are Christian luddites all up and down the Americas

But one of the Mennonite communities in Texas is the center of the outbreak

 

[McTallshort]

There are Christian luddites all up and down the Americas

But one of the Mennonite communities in Texas is the center of the outbreak

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

If I missed something obvious I apologize. Just a lot going on right now.

 

[McTallshort]

If I missed something obvious I apologize. Just a lot going on right now.

It's ok mate. Chicago was saying it was all immigrants. You rightly pointed out it was mennoites so I asked is Mennon in South America..

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I will say I'm not surprised about this all affecting my job I just didn't think it would be immediately.

We really rely on mental health services to make society a safer place and their money is drying up.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

But not the Financial times (makes all the difference)

 

[dirty harry]

So are you honestly saying that the majority of covid conspiracy's at the time were saying there was an accidental lab leak? Really?

You were speaking very matter of factly about it until pressed and then you moved the goalposts to "I didn't say it was 100% guaranteed" but that's fine.

I'm so disappointed in you, your better than this.

 

[dirty harry]

I don't think anyone could reasonably claim that drinking water ever led to atrocities. It's not about finding a correlation and attempting to then attribute causation, I think we can all agree that every atrocity required some degree of communication first, often over a prolonged period of time.

This is not an argument for or against free speech, it's an argument against those who claim speech does not harm. Speech very much can cause harm and I feel the temptation to ignore all the speech that inevitably precedes atrocities or crimes is attempting to avoid the complex issue of the limits of free speech in favour of a simplistic approach of speech is good, actions bad but treating it like the 2 are not strongly linked. Jan 6th for example simply would not have happened had it not been for what Trump said.

It's less about conspiracies causing atrocities and instead the common theme, people believing lies and disinformation to the extent emotion takes over reasoning and they begin to find ways to justify horrific acts, often driven by fear or anger.

You may argue the attacks on Trump are exaggerated but, regardless of the extent of their truth, it is a fact that he is breaking a lot of norms in terms of legality, decorum, principles etc. Things like his stealing of mountains of classified documents are factual events that happened and which have not occurred under any other president. Regardless of where the line is drawn on the rhetoric surrounding it, it is still an extreme event in the history of US presidents, to give one example.

"But it made valuable points about keeping extreme views visible, because when they are visible they are controllable."

But how exactly are the controlled? It's helpful for tracking down individuals who engage in such speech but then any attempt to track or go after people for their speech, no matter how extreme, is treated like an infringement on free speech. The issue is that free speech absolutists, who very often actually aren't, seem to feel that you should be free to say whatever you want without consequence. There has never been a point in the entirety of human history in which free speech has been deemed an absolute right. Even in the fictional "good old days" of the USA free speech wasn't absolute and in fact people were regularly prosecuted or persecuted for their speech to arguably an even greater degree than now. Hell people would shoot people for saying things they disagreed with.

Let me take the most charitable interpretation of this, because I appreciate the response and effort...

This is an argument around free speech, it's merely contextualised into the 'digital town square'.

Let's say your right, speech is harmful, bad ideas should be thrust into deep dark corners unmonitored, unencountered by better ideas...

How are you going to do it without it leading to authoritarianism?

So, who would you say should be unallowed to have a platform because their ideas are bad? Let's start with a specific person...

 

[Welsh Exile]

I'm so disappointed in you, your better than this.

Thanks bud. Much like my reports in school.

Look, I'm glad we agree that we don't know what the origins of Covid were. Could've been leaked from a lab, could've been a natural thing, could've been aliens. Who knows.

I stand by my initial claim that you can lump all the Covid conspiracy BS in with all the other "global" conspiracies like the moon landing and whether the earth is flat. Pretty much every conspiracy has proven to be BS. Even the lab leak one which could be true was always, online at least, framed in a way that it was deliberate or genetically engineered or the World Economic Forum was behind it all blah blah blah.

As a rule of thumb any of these global conspiracies are always complete utter BS.

 

[AlRums]

It's ok mate. Chicago was saying it was all immigrants. You rightly pointed out it was mennoites so I asked is Mennon in South America..

Mennonites - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[AlRums]

Classic

Apparently Maggie Thatcher loved this program, because is was so true.

 

[dirty harry]

Thanks bud. Much like my reports in school.

Look, I'm glad we agree that we don't know what the origins of Covid were. Could've been leaked from a lab, could've been a natural thing, could've been aliens. Who knows.

I stand by my initial claim that you can lump all the Covid conspiracy BS in with all the other "global" conspiracies like the moon landing and whether the earth is flat. Pretty much every conspiracy has proven to be BS. Even the lab leak one which could be true was always, online at least, framed in a way that it was deliberate or genetically engineered or the World Economic Forum was behind it all blah blah blah.

As a rule of thumb any of these global conspiracies are always complete utter BS.

Firstly, I spat my blwdi tea out you git...

Secondly, I think I've found our issue, you are considering extreme conspiracy theories, so wild they can't possibly be true.

Here's my stance, the term 'conspiracy theory' has been weaponised, and those who make claims that don't tow the party line, or at least follow standard societal norms are labelled to be discarded.

Yes the bio weapon claims were ludicrous, there was no evidence of that, but when governments order suppression of very basic advice, from medical professionals, or claims that the virus that originated in the Wuhan area, was from Wuhan, are all just ramblings from conspiracy theory nuts, that's when it becomes dangerous. We were locked in our houses, and threatened with fines and violence if we left, far beyond the initial panic stage, and those who dared to disagree were called conspiracy nutjobs.

There was a time when Trump closed entry to people flying in from China, he was called racist, then later he was lambasted for acting too slowly lol. He was also called racist for calling this a virus from China, and anyone who made the claim was called? You guessed it.

And IMO this is where bad ideas breed and become a problem, the more social media, and governments stopped the sharing of ideas, the more frustrated the populations became, and then pop, BLM happened. I'm not saying it was a sole factor, but locking up a population and telling them they can't talk about the reason, was always going to result in a bang.

I just don't think you can stop certain people from speaking without it leading to authoritarianism intended or not.

 

[AlRums]

Trump and Bukele make clear mistakenly deported Maryland father won't be returned to US

President Donald Trump and El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, both made clear during an Oval Office meeting today that the Maryland man who was wrongly deported to El Salvador won't be returned to the United States.

Despite a Supreme Court ruling that the US must "facilitate" Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia's return, White House officials have argued it's up to El Salvador whether to do so. Asked directly by CNN's Kaitlan Collins whether he plans to return Abrego Garcia, Bukele argued the notion of doing so would be "preposterous."

"I hope you're not suggesting that I smuggle a terrorist into the United States," Bukele said. "How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? Of course I'm not going to do it. The question is preposterous."

As CNN reported, the high court's unsigned and brief decision left US District Judge Paula Xinis' order requiring Abrego Garcia's return in place but drew a distinction between "facilitating" his return and "effectuating" it. The lower court properly required the government to "facilitate" his return, the justices made clear. Senior White House officials have objected to the Xinis' ruling in recent days and argued that a court cannot intervene in the foreign policy decision-making of the United States.

Trump himself has shifted his stance in recent days after initially saying he would abide by the Supreme Court's decision.

"If the Supreme Court said bring somebody back I would do that. I respect the Supreme Court," Trump told reporters last week.

Abrego Garcia entered the country illegally sometime around 2011, but an immigration judge in 2019, after reviewing evidence, withheld his removal. That meant that Abrego Garcia could not be deported to El Salvador. A gang in his native country, the immigration judge found, had been "targeting him and threatening him with death because of his family's pupusa business."

 

[Yulia]

Mennonites - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Tbh I think McTallshort already knew it, it was just a sarcasm from his side

 

[AlRums]

With billions at risk, Harvard rejects Trump administration's request for policy changes

https://us.cnn.com/2025/04/14/us/harvard-rejects-policy-changes/index.html

Harvard refuses Trump admin demands to curtail antisemitism on campus — putting billions in federal aid in jeopardy

Harvard University said it will not comply with demands issued by the Trump administration aimed at curtailing antisemitism on campus, potentially putting billions in federal contracts and grants a…

nypost.com

Left and right reporting of the same things Ng, read the differences of what's left out by the NYPost

Freedom of speech the victim once again

 

[AlRums]

Tbh I think McTallshort already knew it, it was just a sarcasm from his side

Yeah, reading for the second time, I'd just got that.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Firstly, I spat my blwdi tea out you git...

Secondly, I think I've found our issue, you are considering extreme conspiracy theories, so wild they can't possibly be true.

Here's my stance, the term 'conspiracy theory' has been weaponised, and those who make claims that don't tow the party line, or at least follow standard societal norms are labelled to be discarded.

Yes the bio weapon claims were ludicrous, there was no evidence of that, but when governments order suppression of very basic advice, from medical professionals, or claims that the virus that originated in the Wuhan area, was from Wuhan, are all just ramblings from conspiracy theory nuts, that's when it becomes dangerous. We were locked in our houses, and threatened with fines and violence if we left, far beyond the initial panic stage, and those who dared to disagree were called conspiracy nutjobs.

There was a time when Trump closed entry to people flying in from China, he was called racist, then later he was lambasted for acting too slowly lol. He was also called racist for calling this a virus from China, and anyone who made the claim was called? You guessed it.

And IMO this is where bad ideas breed and become a problem, the more social media, and governments stopped the sharing of ideas, the more frustrated the populations became, and then pop, BLM happened. I'm not saying it was a sole factor, but locking up a population and telling them they can't talk about the reason, was always going to result in a bang.

I just don't think you can stop certain people from speaking without it leading to authoritarianism intended or not.

I'm more talking about global conspiracy theories to be honest. They're always BS. But like with anything there's dozens of variations of them and they all move the goalposts when new facts come out. If anything lockdowns proved to be pretty effective. We can argue about how much and how long and all that stuff but beyond any doubt it saved lives. No doubt lots of mistakes were made as it's hard to see at the time and as you said earlier you'd hope we'd learn from that next time round.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Let me take the most charitable interpretation of this, because I appreciate the response and effort...

This is an argument around free speech, it's merely contextualised into the 'digital town square'.

Let's say your right, speech is harmful, bad ideas should be thrust into deep dark corners unmonitored, unencountered by better ideas...

How are you going to do it without it leading to authoritarianism?

So, who would you say should be unallowed to have a platform because their ideas are bad? Let's start with a specific person...

I wasn't advocating any position with respect to what should really be done regarding free speech because I don't think there is a simple answer. I was more advocating, or perhaps a better wording would be pushing against, the idea that speech cannot be harmful and the speech someone makes can be treated almost as completely isolated from actions they or others then take directly as a result of that speech.

Positions I do advocate with respect to limits on free speech are largely as they are now, that threats and attempts to enable or advocate illegal or harmful acts should not be deemed protected speech. The issue is largely the same as it has always been, the grey area that includes things like implicit language, plausible deniability, wolf whistles etc where an intent is meant but not explicitly stated. What people define as harmful acts aren't consistent.

I'm mostly railing against so called free speech absolutists who feel anyone should be free to say anything and it should all be protected. Conspiracy already factors into some criminal acts and is a criminal prosecution based around the use of speech to enable crimes, yet we are seeing even conspiracy being dismissed by the so called free speech absolutists as protected.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Classic

Apparently Maggie Thatcher loved this program, because is was so true.

One of the best comedies ever produced imo