I don't know that the top comment assumed the people signing up for this trial were sick or medically unwell.
I am not arguing the why or who of clinical trials. My comment had nothing to do with the why or who. It had to do with the judgements made by both comments about the who.
I can understand why you'd feel that comment was insensitive if you have the context you provided. But an assumption about the motives without necessary context does not equal guilt on the original commenter. This person may not have considered the health of someone willing to join such a trial at all. It may never have occurred to them that unhealthy people were signing up.
His hatred for Musk is kind of justifiable in the way Musk has accrued his wealth and the actions of his companies under his direction. And given that track record the logic of not wanting to become the next Hyperloop that is now just an underground tunnel.
This is the internet. People gonna people.
Pretty much all of the misconceptions you listed could have been solved by simply reading the article, or even being slightly informed about the process of approval of experimental evidence.
Judging from a place of ignorance isn't really any better.
See number 5. People really are going to people, but compounding that is also not any better.
And when people are mindlessly and unfairly judging people, we shouldn't call them out? If I see someone being racist should I just throw up my hands and say "well people are going to people"?
And why aren't you following your own advice and allowing me to people without being challenged?
People are naturally going to have the reactions they do to Elon Musk. If the news outlets didn't constantly put him in the spotlight more people would probably be willing to read the article and learn about the trial and the science. As it is I'm not surprised people didn't read the article.
I'm not particularly invested in either side of this which makes me a pretty unbiased third party simply pointing out that neither of you is making the community better with these kinds of comments. If you had quoted relevant parts from the article that would have been a better way to convey what you meant.
And mostly because you responded to me.
This is hilarious. You responded to me first, I only addressed you have you jumped in. You are also not "unbiased" because you didn't read the article either and defended the assumption, accusing me of assuming too. But not only that but making false assumptions about my position and then accusing me of being on a high horse. And you're trying to pretend youre some neutral party. Lol
Whatever, my man. You want to let ignorant judgments go unaddressed, be my guest, but I'm going to people over here and call it out like it should be.
My comment had nothing to do with the article. So I didn't need to read the article.
My comment had nothing to do with the article.
You were talking about how we (me and the top level commentor) were both fair in our assumption about what kind of person was that was willing to undergo the procedure. And the article is about people willing to undergo the procedure. So you were absolutely talking about the article. Not only that, but incorrectly claiming that my position was based on being equally as ignorant as you and the top level commentor, when my position was actually based on being knowledgeable by reading the comment.
Because you both made assumptions. Just because your assumptions were not about the article itself doesn't mean that you didn't make assumptions.
The assumption you claimed I made was in relation to a fact I stated that's in the article. Wtf are you on about, specifically?
No. The assumption was that the other person had the context you had from the article, and chose to call someone stupid. But I don't know why you're even bothering with this. You obviously don't agree and that's fine.
You're attempting to change what you accused me of assuming. But in your attempt to be not wrong, you made yourself even more wrong.
I made no assumption that they read the article. I was actually pretty sure they didn't, in typical Lemmy fashion.
So it's not actually you assuming. Lol
And why do you keep on acting like I'm the only one keeping this conversation going? You've responded to me as much as I've responded to you.
I don't know that the top comment assumed the people signing up for this trial were sick or medically unwell.
I am not arguing the why or who of clinical trials. My comment had nothing to do with the why or who. It had to do with the judgements made by both comments about the who.
I can understand why you'd feel that comment was insensitive if you have the context you provided. But an assumption about the motives without necessary context does not equal guilt on the original commenter. This person may not have considered the health of someone willing to join such a trial at all. It may never have occurred to them that unhealthy people were signing up.
His hatred for Musk is kind of justifiable in the way Musk has accrued his wealth and the actions of his companies under his direction. And given that track record the logic of not wanting to become the next Hyperloop that is now just an underground tunnel.
This is the internet. People gonna people.
Pretty much all of the misconceptions you listed could have been solved by simply reading the article, or even being slightly informed about the process of approval of experimental evidence.
Judging from a place of ignorance isn't really any better.
See number 5. People really are going to people, but compounding that is also not any better.
And when people are mindlessly and unfairly judging people, we shouldn't call them out? If I see someone being racist should I just throw up my hands and say "well people are going to people"?
And why aren't you following your own advice and allowing me to people without being challenged?
People are naturally going to have the reactions they do to Elon Musk. If the news outlets didn't constantly put him in the spotlight more people would probably be willing to read the article and learn about the trial and the science. As it is I'm not surprised people didn't read the article.
I'm not particularly invested in either side of this which makes me a pretty unbiased third party simply pointing out that neither of you is making the community better with these kinds of comments. If you had quoted relevant parts from the article that would have been a better way to convey what you meant.
And mostly because you responded to me.
This is hilarious. You responded to me first, I only addressed you have you jumped in. You are also not "unbiased" because you didn't read the article either and defended the assumption, accusing me of assuming too. But not only that but making false assumptions about my position and then accusing me of being on a high horse. And you're trying to pretend youre some neutral party. Lol
Whatever, my man. You want to let ignorant judgments go unaddressed, be my guest, but I'm going to people over here and call it out like it should be.
My comment had nothing to do with the article. So I didn't need to read the article.
You were talking about how we (me and the top level commentor) were both fair in our assumption about what kind of person was that was willing to undergo the procedure. And the article is about people willing to undergo the procedure. So you were absolutely talking about the article. Not only that, but incorrectly claiming that my position was based on being equally as ignorant as you and the top level commentor, when my position was actually based on being knowledgeable by reading the comment.
Because you both made assumptions. Just because your assumptions were not about the article itself doesn't mean that you didn't make assumptions.
The assumption you claimed I made was in relation to a fact I stated that's in the article. Wtf are you on about, specifically?
No. The assumption was that the other person had the context you had from the article, and chose to call someone stupid. But I don't know why you're even bothering with this. You obviously don't agree and that's fine.
You're attempting to change what you accused me of assuming. But in your attempt to be not wrong, you made yourself even more wrong.
I made no assumption that they read the article. I was actually pretty sure they didn't, in typical Lemmy fashion.
So it's not actually you assuming. Lol
And why do you keep on acting like I'm the only one keeping this conversation going? You've responded to me as much as I've responded to you.
Sure.