Bill Maher Goes on Anti-Vax Tirade During Heated Covid-19 Debate With 'Family Guy' Creator Seth MacFarlane
okmagazine.com
Sorry, can't find any better sources for this.
The animator then asked Maher what the “downside” of “getting a vaccine” was, which caused the comedian to go on an anti-vax tirade.
“The fact that you the fact that you don’t even have a clue what’s the cost of getting a vaccine that you don’t know the answer to that. You completely want to shut your eyes to the fact that there are repercussions to all medical interventions, including a vaccine, all vaccines,” he ranted. “They come, they say side effects, just like every medication does. You can see it in the literature. They can’t write it on their back on the vaccine. So you have to dig them. And of course, there is a vaccine court because so many people have been injured.”
You are viewing a single comment
i went ahead and listened to that "antivax rant" and really it wasn't against the vaccine at all, he was against the censorship of discussion about it and policies around it.
such as, the lab leak hypothesis... once completely censored as "misinformation", but now a viable theory.
or how previous covid infections don't count as a vaccination, although the immunity ends up the same.
a lot of his ideas on it are wrong, or misinformed, but the fact that we weren't allowed to talk about it was fucked up... and i think it was a lot of the reason antivax shit got so big... being completely censored by bots on every forum makes a lot of people paranoid.
i do also remember being shouted down in every forum by a mob of anti-vax russian sock puppets, so it wasn't for no reason... but still, being able talk about things is crucial for a democracy to function.
It was never completely censored. Evidenced by the fact that you, me, and everyone else heard about it.
People got called names for promoting it without good evidence. People also got called names for pointing out that the evidence was super weak. Y'know, what passes for "debate" these days.
Stop lying
omg, you're soooooo right!
it wasn't completely, 100% censored, because ive heard of it! i must by lying!!!!!
your evidence is so solid! so much better than what passes for debates, is you completely proving that im lying.
go ahead and pretend like you haven't seen comments, videos and posts removed for "misinformation"
liar
When a topic has been covered by multiple national newspapers, it's just very silly to claim censorship.
things change over time.
for SOME TIME, it was treated as laughable misinformation, and directly censored... later it wasn't. (check out coverage on Jon Stewart when he talked about it when you weren't supposed to)
at a LATER TIME it was no longer bad to talk about it.
sorry you have no idea what's being discussed here.
im sorry if you really think that there was no censorship involving covid discussions online.
and i dont really care how silly you are.
They weren't censored very well, clearly. And considering a lot of COVID misinformation was telling you to inject horse dewormer instead of getting a vaccine, I wish it was censored better. In a public health emergency, I'm pretty okay with requiring statements to be scientifically and medically sound.
Second, it was misinformation at the time. Researchers and the general scientifically community believed the evidence pointed to other theories. It wasn't until later when we had more evidence that it emerged as a serious possibility.
That's how science works. Unless an idea is supported by clear and sound evidence, it's untrue. The lab leak theory can be misinformation at one point in time and viable at another point in time -- if I predicted heavy snowfall on a 74 degree day in June, it would very obviously be wrong. If I predict it for a 20 degree day in December however, it's actually plausible. It blows my mind that this is a novel concept for some people.
what??? no it wasn't. it was a plausible hypothesis.
that is not how science works. science works by a free exchange of ideas
no. something can be completely true but not at all supported by evidence. You are confusing "truth" with "a broader scientific belief"
that doesn't make sense, and isn't what "misinformation" even means.
well that's the stupidest analogy i've ever read... the "date" and "temperature" of the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis didn't change.
it blows my mind that you're patting yourself on the back for such utter drivel
You're assuming it's true and working backwards from there.
Science is not just a free exchange of ideas. It gives no quarter to unfounded ideas and pseudoscience. You're welcome to propose ideas, but the scientific community can and will tear them apart unless there's a strong basis.
If there is evidence, it must in general point to the truth.
you're talking out of your ass, and im done talking to you
This is a thing that really bothers me these days, has me worried.
There's such an emphasis on "killing the messenger" (vs the message) and shutting down discussion, that we haven't seen in previous ages.
I don't know why it's a new thing, maybe it's just astroturfers/bots, otherwise it's the newer generation being okay with censoring others, and that's a bad thing (censoring others).
it's been pretty crazy...
with covid we had people dying from dumb information, and russia running huge disinfo campaigns online... so i did understand cracking down on it... but just completely stifling all questioning... at all... was a huge, and terrifying, overreaction.
....
i got banned from reddit for arguing in worldnews against obvious israeli disinformation... so that's fun
....
one main troll tactic now is to just fuck with people until you get them aggravated enough to cuss or something, then report them...
(just got a warning on here, actually... i can say any horrible, literally destructive thing i want... but if i cuss at someone or call them a name, well THEN im uncivil
That's what happens when you're trained to recognize buzz words as a strategy for defending yourself against idealogies you disagree with. Not defending yourself because you're right, but because it keeps you from being exposed too much to what the other thinks. It's easier to paint things "good, bad", file them away and go on with your day.
It isn't that they think censorship is good, it's that they're trained to censor themselves. This is just late stage social media brainrot taking full effect, among other things.