Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Cheshire90 t1_izp2wfd wrote

One person's personal experience can't be assumed to generalize, but it's still a hard fact of what happened to them.

I'm pretty pro-vaccine, but this kind of "science says we need to suppress anyone who questions our narrative" paper really creeps me out. We should not have a problem with people sharing their concerns, much less their actual experiences. Aside from it being morally wrong to silence people and depriving us of one source of information, this is exactly the kind of thing that contributes to the "declining authority of scientific expertise in public debates" that the authors note.

−7

WorldlinessAwkward69 t1_izppj7v wrote

The problem is there is no way to verify these experiences and there are many fake/disinformation accounts.

20

mwallace0569 t1_izqgs2o wrote

i don't care about my experiences, feelings, emotions, i know they can be wrong, i know that we can make the wrong connections. i know my experiences isn't the hard facts, so i don't treat them as such.

i learned not to treat as such, because there people in my life who thinks their experiences, emotions are the hard facts, the be the be all and end all. it can be really frustrating trying to argue with them

7

Cheshire90 t1_izr9yyy wrote

The fact that no authority controls discourse has always been part of the tradeoff of an open society. It is significantly more immoral to silence someone genuinely giving their experience than it is to allow some hucksters to speak.

You should also consider that whatever power you give to censor people is going to end up also being wielded by whatever group you currently hate most.

−7

WorldlinessAwkward69 t1_izs9uoj wrote

No one is silencing anyone. Science papers go though more rigor than some anonymous post on twitter. You are discounting expertise. With that logic of open source discourse the next time you need surgery just take a random account’s opinion off twitter to treat you.

6

Cheshire90 t1_iztjzqr wrote

Um are you worried that if people on twitter are allowed to say wrong things your surgeon will use that when treating you?

−1

WorldlinessAwkward69 t1_iztl6w2 wrote

No, I'm just saying because some idiot said it on twitter doesn't make it true/verifiable, and this guy knows it because he wouldn't ask some random twitter/reddit/social media moron to perform brain surgery on him.

1

Cheshire90 t1_iztxxup wrote

So? You seem to have this set up as a dichotomy where either we have complete trust in twitter people or it's so threatening that they be allowed to say what they want that we need to take action against them. Neither of those things are true.

0

MariachiBoyBand t1_izpvie9 wrote

I’m honestly tired of these off base emotional but ultimately bad faith arguments of “being deprived” of information when all that is being critiqued is the bad misinformation that is being peddled like some cheap currency. Maybe take the points that scientists are making also?? Add them to your narrative and see how it all plays out?

Most of the people that comment like this, rarely do any due diligence on their own “skepticism” and have a hard time sifting through the data and often get confused. Mind you, this CAN happen, to get lost in the information and no, it’s not because of intelligence, it’s mostly training and education.

13

Cheshire90 t1_izr9gis wrote

I stated up front that I am not really skeptical of the COVID vaccines. I'm not the one who's afraid that good evidence won't beat bad evidence.

Considering that I basically agree with the pro-vaccine position I'm really curious, what's the bad faith motive that you're accusing me of for saying "just don't censor people"?

I will say that if someone has a bad reaction to any medical treatment it is flatly immoral to tell them they can't share their experience or to try to silence them. It's completely crazy to me that responsible people would think that's what they should do to control "misinformation".

−4

MariachiBoyBand t1_izraydg wrote

Again, you’re using emotional pleas to “get your message”, the people that get a reaction, should speak out but also, the percentage of people that get a reaction should be part of the conversation. Generally when I read a message of a bad reaction to vaccines, it’s accompanied by absurd messaging of “what else are they hiding” paired with mistrust with no actual source nor due diligence as to the percentage of people affected, this is the crux of the bad faith arguments, fear and exaggeration of vaccines is part it.

7

Cheshire90 t1_izrciqp wrote

What emotional plea? I'm advocating against the emotion-based argument that we have to suppress people because maybe rationality might not win out.

People who are reporting their own experience aren't responsible for putting that in context of the rest of the population. They are literally just saying what happened to them.

The rest of us should take their report in context of the balance of evidence, not try to dismiss it because we need all evidence to point 100% in one direction. There will always be evidence for and against any position.

It's not really that threatening for people to be allowed to say wrong or exaggerated things; it going to happen all the time no matter what you do. Sorry to break that news. A lot of it will by by people who are on "your side" of any given issue.

2

Anubisrapture t1_izt2umm wrote

Not in this situation. One side is actually vetted, scientific and the other side is linked to things like Q anon and the hysteria of the far right- which leads to or includes violence and other cult like situations. Both siding this is not a good thing.

1

Cheshire90 t1_iztj19u wrote

Which right wing politicians do you think should be in charge of deciding who gets to speak when they have the majority? Whatever standard you advocate for is going to be applied by the exact people you're afraid of.

Free speech is not about equivalency between sides. The idea that you can vet out who is right and silence anyone who doesn't meet your standard is both a fantasy and will surely backfire on you.

1

Anubisrapture t1_izt2ia4 wrote

Well for an example of what allowing any old speech will do- look at how Twitter is currently tanking from misinformation, constant ridiculous / bUt hUnTeR'S lApToP threads from Elon himself , and the opening of ALL speech which lead to the constant far right dangerous hate speech on it now.

1

Cheshire90 t1_iztjg8q wrote

Great example. Now that someone you don't agree with is in control of the company, do you still want them to use your standard of censoring any speech that he thinks is bad?

1

xAfterBirthx t1_izpojzy wrote

And this is the problem with people thinking they are somehow superior to non vaccinated people. I am vaccinated but I see people do this all the time.

−12

clumsy_poet t1_izpviuc wrote

I think it's important to say that they made a stupid decision not that they are stupid people.

7

Cheshire90 t1_izra7nw wrote

It's taken on this weird in/out group aspect since it became so tied up in politics and people's personal identity that really does not serve us well, no matter what your goals are.

0