2020 Post Election MEGAthread

[hobart]

Originally Posted by douglas1999 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lune is one of the worst cases of trump derangement syndrome I've ever seen. Before twitter, nobody could lie! Now with twitter, people can lie and it spreads real fast. Therefor twitter should decide *for* me what I deserve to read and not read. Excellent.

Even if trump "lies" constantly on twitter, all it takes is five seconds of actual research, all on your very own, to determine if it's a lie or not. If you just credulously eat up everything you see on twitter without a drop of healthy skepticism you're pretty fucked no matter what your politics. Democrats lie all the god damn time too.

For example, how they portray covid. Johns hopkins just published a paper basically saying that covid is not dangerous at all, and the way it has been portrayed by the media is extremely misleading, and that lockdowns are a terrible policy, which is now in line with the WHO's position on lockdowns. Then they took the paper down for some reason without any mention as to why!

Trump Derangement Syndrome is defending Trump. The fact that you're so blase about fact checking Trump "if" he lies -- if -- Proves you're afflicted.

Also, the John's Hopkins thing is a hoax. It's an update of a March/April bogus article that was misattributed to John's Hopkins researchers. In this case, the update is that a new study was published and censored. It wasn't. It does match your worldview, so I can see why you fell for it. It's the same reason you're a "liberal" that supports Donald Trump. /eyeroll

[FatherSioux]

Originally Posted by hobart [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Trump Derangement Syndrome is defending Trump. The fact that you're so blase about fact checking Trump "if" he lies -- if -- Proves you're afflicted.

Also, the John's Hopkins thing is a hoax. It's an update of a March/April bogus article that was misattributed to John's Hopkins researchers. In this case, the update is that a new study was published and censored. It wasn't. It does match your worldview, so I can see why you fell for it. It's the same reason you're a "liberal" that supports Donald Trump. /eyeroll

Do you not understand that the MSM championed RussiaCollusion, Impeachment gate all with zero evidence. Yet they chose to censor stories about corruption regarding Biden for no apparent reason, aside from the obvious farce of them hiding behind some new policy that has never been policed.

If you believe TDS is about people defending trump you are too far into your bubble.

[FatherSioux]

Originally Posted by hobart [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Trump Derangement Syndrome is defending Trump. The fact that you're so blase about fact checking Trump "if" he lies -- if -- Proves you're afflicted.

Also, the John's Hopkins thing is a hoax. It's an update of a March/April bogus article that was misattributed to John's Hopkins researchers. In this case, the update is that a new study was published and censored. It wasn't. It does match your worldview, so I can see why you fell for it. It's the same reason you're a "liberal" that supports Donald Trump. /eyeroll

Also, Genevieve Brand, is assistant program director and senior lecturer for the Applied Economics degree at John's Hopkins with a PhD from Washington State U.

Also there is a video here of a webinar she did. Tell me again about your theory...Not fake news...

[hobart]

Originally Posted by FatherSioux [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also, Genevieve Brand, is assistant program director and senior lecturer for the Applied Economics degree at John's Hopkins with a PhD from Washington State U.

Also there is a video here of a webinar she did. Tell me again about your theory...Not fake news...

My "theory" was referencing another article that went around in April of this year which was a hoax. This, instead, is a non-story.

Ms. Brand's article was originally published in the school student newspaper -- not a peer reviewed scientific work. And it was taken down by the students who publish it.

From the students themselves: "Editor’s Note: After The News-Letter published this article on Nov. 22, it was brought to our attention that our coverage of Genevieve Briand’s presentation “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic.

We decided on Nov. 26 to retract this article to stop the spread of misinformation, as we noted on social media."

Nothing to see.

[douglas1999]

Originally Posted by hobart [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My "theory" was referencing another article that went around in April of this year which was a hoax. This, instead, is a non-story.

Ms. Brand's article was originally published in the school student newspaper -- not a peer reviewed scientific work. And it was taken down by the students who publish it.

From the students themselves: "Editor’s Note: After The News-Letter published this article on Nov. 22, it was brought to our attention that our coverage of Genevieve Briand’s presentation “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic.

We decided on Nov. 26 to retract this article to stop the spread of misinformation, as we noted on social media."

Nothing to see.

"It was brought to our attention". By who? Are you so incurious you don't care who brought it to their attention, and why? And based on what? People are so enamored and infatuated with scientific jargon. A doofus idiot with no peer review can still be right about something. There are also serious issues with the peer review process, in that a group of people who already have conclusions they want to be true and all agree with eachother peer review eachother's papers. So even if it had the pedigree of peer review, that wouldn't necessarily be meaningful.

Why not actually engage with what is said in the paper, rather than saying "well because of this, I don't have to contend with it at all." while plugging your ears? Give it the benefit of the doubt and actually read what she said. It "has been used" to support "dangerous misinformation". So, other people who are not the author have used it to spread "dangerous misinformation". No specifics at all about what is dangerous or inaccurate, and their gripe isn't even about the paper or the author, but that other people are using it wrongly. Science will never move forward with this kind of paranoid censoring. The vast majority of scientific theories are wrong, the whole point is that they should all be consumed and considered and the right answer eventually teases itself out. Their conclusion that it "spreads dangerous disinformation" could itself be wrong. Maybe it doesn't, maybe it's right. She has serious credentials, it should be seriously considered.

[FatherSioux]

It reminds me of the click from I think MSNBC where they are essentially saying about Fox, "Can you imagine if there was a network that loved Democrats as much as fox loves conservatives?!"

It's just astounding that an ideology could have such a grip on many of the cultural centers and not understand that.

[White_knight]

Trump 2024 vrs Hillary 2024.

Let's make politics exciting again.

[Mblake81]

Originally Posted by White_knight [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Trump 2024 vrs Hillary 2024.

Let's make politics exciting again.

*turns channel*

[Woke Locc]

Mossad don't miss

[Trexller]

Originally Posted by Woke Locc [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Mossad don't miss

I Love Israel. They do not fuck around! I remember back when the USA once had a pair of brass balls. Good times.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]