🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@Borgesius This is old news, but are you being serious, I took that as a joke :)

@namark

I have so far clarified every statement you have asked me to, if you feel I avoided any such request my apologies, reiterate it and i will clarify again.

@bonifartius

@namark

Not sure why you keep saying I dont want to talk. I have replied to (talked) every comment you've made so far.

Feel free to repeat the same thing in ten different ways if you wish. But so far the variations dont appear to add any new information or clear up any confusion. It seems what your saying is clear enough, just happens to be wrong by my assessment (and I have explained why at each point thus far and am happy to continue to do so).

@bonifartius

@namark

> Sure, applies to everyone, how does it create a dichotomy then?

Since i did not claim it applies to everyone, your fundemental axiom that is present leading into the question is already incorrect before we get to the question. Therefore I can not answer a question that is founded on an invalid axiom.

> Again the only way I can interpret what you are saying is that the dichotomy just exists arbitrarily for the sake of existing, cause you just want it to exist or something.

Since your base axiom that you used to construct this scenario is itself invalid any interpretation you draw from it is likewise invalid.

> There is no difference between you and the left other than that you are not left.

That is certainly your opinion. Though I do not agree, as was already stated I see a great many differences on aggregate between those who identify as left and those who don't. you obviously disagree, that is your right, however wrong I may think it may be. Restating it over and over though wont get you anywhere on its own.

@bonifartius

@pganssle It is specifically trying to rewrite the established definition of herd immunity as including natural exposure to one where natural exposure is not related to herd immunity.

They saw scientists, who have long worked with disease proliferation models (such as myself a decade ago or so) talk about how the lockdowns are causing the disease to spread in a much more harmful fashion. Even though this is established science the propaganda of the day is that lockdowns are a good thing, not a bad, so they had to rewrite the definition of herd immunity in a way that appears to specifically exclude natural exposure as a component.

@namark

I have, multiple times, and each time you have come back with an absurdist paraphrasing that doesnt remotely resemble what I just said.

I also didnt call you dumb, I said your pretending to be dumb and I know damn well your smarter than this but are only doing it because you have run out of constructive counterarguments to support your PoV and backing down isnt in your repertoire

@bonifartius

@namark

And i answered, I told you no, that does not remotely resemble my views or what I said.

@bonifartius

@namark

Again with the inability to comprehend what I state clearly...

I did not say it applied any less to my group or me, nor did I claim it applies more. I made no statements about if or to what extent I am susceptible to the effect.

What I did say (but you seem to keep reading what you imagine, not what you say) is that your hypocrisy in finding it absurd to state about others, and then to use it as a statement about me as if it is not absurd, shows the weakness of your argument. As I've reiterate several times now, I objected to the hypocrisy, not the accusation itself.

@bonifartius

@namark

dont tell me what I said, as I didnt say that. Quote me if you wish to tell me what I said as you clearly have an inability to repeat what I say accurately.

@bonifartius

@namark

When did I say it applies to all? I never once said all people equally demonstrate group-think.

That said, as I already stated (and you seem to continually be misreading things as I dont think your this stupid not to know basic english), the issue isnt that you might think I am experiencing group-think, thats not really the objection at all. The objection is that a second ago you ridiculed the very idea that a person could even experience group think (with such absurdities as calling it a parrot species or some nonsense) and then you go and use that very idea you just flamboyantly dismissed in an attempt to weaponize it against me.

It isnt that you are accusing me of group-think that is the problem, its the hypocrisy that you behave as if it is an absurd idea when I posited it and then double back to use that very idea in earnest to describe me.

your willingness to use hypocrisy when it suits your needs is the only issue here, not the claim itself.

@bonifartius

Oh WHO, I see propaganda is the priority these days... sad.

PS: I havent not had the time to personally confirm this, it was shared with me. Quick internet search hasnt found anything debunking it, would like to check with the way back machine, but it does fit the pattern so ill leave it for now.

#WHO #Covid #Corona #Coronavirus

@namark

funny, when its the left you have some absurd paraphrasing about me thinking its a "human parrot species" or whatever nonsense... now all of a sudden that you feel you can use it as a personal attack its a perfectly normal stance when applied to us...

Might want to look in a mirror your hypocrisy is showing.

@bonifartius

@namark

Nope, thought if thats the hyperbole you want to stick to rather than bothering to have a constructive conversation, go with it.

Usually I find when someone starts resorting to manipulative and inaccurate paraphrasing, especially to the point of absurdity that it is below what I'd expect their normal level of intelligence to indicate, tells me they simply have no constructive counterargument and are just too stuborn to admit their argument was a dead end.

Feel free to prove me wrong and bother to actually contribute constructive comments to the conversation rather than going off into fictional manipulative rants if you wish. I obviously wont address absurdities but would be happy to continue discussion if you wish to come back to the land of maturity.

@bonifartius

@nubigo

there hasnt been any data yet to associate bells palsy with the vaccine, though its new enough this could be possible. We should wait and see rather than jump to conclusions. Though I do agree with the lack of safety testing illnesses such as this are entirely possible.

@Atlas

@namark

No they were your mangling of words I stated into a new sentence, new phrase, and with new context.. you cant just take individual words someone used, rearrange them into a new sentence and pass them off as mine.. they are yours, entierly yours.

@bonifartius

@namark

If thats how you want to summarize the left thats fine by me.. group-think (hive mind) parrot-humans isnt far off.

@bonifartius

@namark

Depends on what you mean by Hive Mind. But yes thats part of it, people who identify as being on the left tend to parrot, often without bothering to understand, things that other people who identify with being on the left tend to say. More so if those people are in high regard among the left (such as being a leader in a party that likewise identifies as being on the left). So yea, group think is a big part of "how that works"

And no the best we can claim is not simply agreeing on something (though there are things they tend to agree on). Personality traits, tactics used in discussion, specific phrasing without understanding the meaning of the words, are all things we can also claim is common or shared among the majority of those identifying as on the left.

@bonifartius

@bonifartius

I cant speak to germans personally. I dont cross the border to germany often enough to say.

@namark

@namark

While self identifying as queen victoria may not mean you are queen victoria I can make several correct assumptions about people who self-identify as queen victoria, namely that they are delusional (not you as this was rhetoric of course).

Similarly even if we agreed the left is a fiction and that people who self-identify as left are identifying with a fictional concept, it still doesnt change the underlying assertion or make it any less valid. That is, that people who claim to self-identify as left have certain common qualities in personality among the majority of such people.

So the left being a fiction, if that were true, doesnt in any way weaken the argument. The left doesnt need to be a "reality" for it to be true that those who self identify with it are often bad people.

@bonifartius

@bonifartius

I'd say you describe 95% of the american left, 70% of the UK left, and 5% of the Dutch left

@namark