No, but if I was a left wing Twitter account with millions of followers and I deliberately posted misinformation then it would quickly become propaganda
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
No, but if I was a left wing Twitter account with millions of followers and I deliberately posted misinformation then it would quickly become propaganda
There is no silencing in the scientific community. Please remember that. The fighting you see on social media is not scientific silencing. Science is always open to opposite opinions. It is what raises it above religion and above conspiracy. Those two seek to reject information at odds with their beliefs. Science listens and tries to understand.
I know a lot of scientists and not one is remotely sceptical of the environmental crisis. It takes a lot of hoop jumping to deny it.
I disagree. There was much science denial and censoring of scientists during covid.
Even peer reviewed studies by reputable scientists were censored and shadow banned.
Once an establishment is set and a paradigm is created, anything that upsets the established order seems to be made a pariah.
For example; did you know the wright brothers were outcasts at first most scientists thought human flight was impossible, and it was faked?
There are climatologists out there with opposing views. They just get deplatformed.
What is your scientific background? I work in a school with a lot of very well educated people with science degrees and they disagree about everything. They are all over the political spectrum. They fight about trans stuff. They argue about all kinds of opinions. But if you say to them: come on, the is some doubt environment crisis, every single one will stop and laugh at you. Because the weight of scientific evidence is beyond denial. Like I said, the hoops you have to jump through to deny it are incredible. And it says something really damning about the kind of people willing to jump through those hoops.
The agenda here is simple: let me live as I do and don’t make me feel guilty. There is no agenda the other way. This is what bothers me about conspiracy theorists. Their theories are never the simplest and most obvious truth - and in life the simplest and most obvious truth is reliably correct.
The climatologists with opposing views who are "deplatformed" generally turn out not to be climatologists after all. Doing a bit of analysis on your PC in your bedroom does not a climatologist make.
I'm sure you'll have good clear evidence (see earlier posts for a definition of evidence) of a climatologist being deplatformed.
I'm sure you'll have good clear evidence (see earlier posts for a definition of evidence) of a climatologist being deplatformed.
How many people do you have to ignore to make sure you hear the minority who agree with you?
https://amp.theguardian.com/environ...sis-11000-scientists-warn-of-untold-suffering
https://amp.theguardian.com/environ...sis-11000-scientists-warn-of-untold-suffering
Like I said, I think it is likely happening. But they are certainly deplatforming anyone that goes against the narrative, and I think that’s a problem for science. When science becomes a political tool instead of impartial, objective reasoning then I have a big problem. And that is where we are with climate science right now.
When was the last time you saw anyone even discuss the possibility of the climate crisis being overblown on any mainstream media platform? Groupthink is a huge issue in any scientific arena.
One example in the climate field is Judith Curry. She is a “climate heretic”. The fact you can even be a heretic in a scientific field is a huge problem.
Judith Curry has certainly not been deplatformed: From Wikipedia.
-----------------
Curry has repeatedly been invited as a witness to United States Congressional hearings as one of the few scientists advancing doubts about the significance of human contributions to climate change, and political figures have used Curry's statements and writings in their arguments. For instance, when Christopher Shank, a politician and President Trump's first appointment to the NASA transition team, questioned the role of humans in climate change, Shank referred to Curry's work and her site's URL repeatedly in his testimony.[26][27]
Between 2014 and February 2019, Curry testified before at least six Republican-led House committees, expressing the idea that the dangers of global warming are overstated and difficult to predict. These testimonies include criticisms of President Obama's climate plan, the UN climate action plan, and other policy proposals aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions. In her Natural Resources Committee testimony on February 6, 2019, Curry stated that, "Man-made climate change is not an existential threat in the 21st century.... The perception of a near-term apocalypse has narrowed the policy options".[9][22]
In February 2019, Curry was on a Trump administration candidate list for a "Presidential Committee on Climate Security" to perform an "adversarial scientific peer review" of climate science.[28] The administration offered Curry a senior position at the NOAA in late 2020, which Curry declined.[29]
-----------------
Vin
.
What if you were a right wing account with millions of followers? Would that be propaganda or would you regard it as true?
It would obviously be propaganda. I think any misinformation spread about someone and “trial by media” is a bad thing. I don’t care what their politics are.
OK. I must have missed your post about Trump's claim that Obama stole thousands of documents when he left the presidency. You repeated his claim but when I posted proof that it was nonsense, I didn't notice you calling it propaganda. I must have missed it. I'm sure you would have said it.
Vin
Os - I know you're now into an imagined deplatforming conversation regarding climate change, but it would probably do you well to respond to this rather than ignoring it, as by ignoring it, you're tacitly supporting someone who is the above. And you're probably doing that in order to avoid possibly having to admit that the jury is certainly not "out" on Andrew Tate.
Or you can just say that yes, you're cool with all of the above, which is also fine, and gives me a different set of information and allows me to happily not engage with someone like you.
Os doesn't tend to respond once there's pretty clear evidence of his talking bollocks. As per the above.
I guess it is good that this wasn’t what happened then isn’t it? But of course when challenged your response was that you apparently didn’t care
and the account under discussion had about 99k followers. So - not millions
Nah but there were multiple accounts with millions of combined followers that jumped on the misinformation all at the same time. How else would people totally uninterested in Andrew Tate end up regurgitating the info?
LTL, I did see your post. And it’s mostly the same regurgitated stuff from the past about Tate. Most of it is his jokes taken out of context. All of what he did in terms of his webcam business was consensual. He ran a webcam/only fans business and then took a cut of what the girls made.
I agree that it is morally dubious. But if it was all consensual and above board, which he has stated many times is the case, then I don’t think he should be classed as evil for that. (Again - unless it gets proven true. In which case he should be given the harshest possible sentence.)
Have you seen any press at all about the millions he donated to women’s charities? Or the male suicides he prevented and young men he has helped?
I said before that there is a reason why he is resonating enough to become one of the most famous people in the world - and I really do believe that is worth thinking about.
It’s easy to dismiss his entire message as “incel” and “misogynistic” etc, especially when that is what is being forced out through all the headlines.
But a more interesting conversation is around his main point and the reason why he has become famous so quickly:
There are a huge amount of young men out there essentially being told by the mainstream media that they are evil for being young, white males. They are told that they are the beneficiaries of an evil patriarchy and that they are subjugating women and other cultures.
Tate is saying “No, **** that. Be proud of who you are, work hard and aim to build a better life for yourself, your woman and your family.” And that simple message has catapulted him to global stardom.
I am not one to really care about celebrities, and I certainly wouldn’t want to defend a human trafficker if he has been doing that. But it is fascinating to watch it all unfold. And I maintain that he has some very good points about society and life in some of the interviews I’ve heard.
I don’t really understand what this has to do with anything? If trump claimed that and he lied then he’s a liar. Lying is never good, especially from those with influence and power
Yes Vin, and with all these accolades and accomplishments have you ever once heard her or seen her on any mainstream media?
I am on one of the committees for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and contributed to previous reports. The reports are put together by thousands of scientists based upon published literature. It has no agenda so I can't see any conspiracy. Or do we think the WHO etc. are also political?
As a scientist you take measurements and report trends. Of course there is debate on the results and any published work is scrutinised by independently appointed experts in the field.
The reason there is so much talk about Climate Change is because we are seeing unprecedented change and this has massive impact on everyone. Regardless of whether you think it is caused by man made sources (which most believe) it is critical to focus on prevention. There may be some evidence that doesn't always align but trends strongly point towards man made impact.
Which is all fine, but the science of climate change and emissions targets are totally detached from human well-being and development of society.
As usual politicians are rushing into policies which are making life worse for average citizens, and especially harmful to lesser economically developed countries.
There is huge middle ground between the science & the politics which needs to be navigated carefully
Last edited:
Tate remanded in custody for 30 days at request of Romanian police:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64128616
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64128616