My condolences, BigT. I’m sorry to hear of your loss.
No worries.
Sometimes SayTwo gets threads littered up and I know he’s full of crap when it comes to something that requires bullet proof evidence and what’s like just his opinion, man.
But the forum is a little closed-in opinion wise. I think he occasionally brings up stuff that should actually get a look. Like LSLGuy’s list in the vaccine refusers thread. I didn’t want to dissect it too much but when SayTwo finally made his point, I think it was useful to look into it.
Eta: I didn’t see you next post. My condolences, BigT.
I think that’s a terrible idea. I used to post on another board where moderation was REALLY slow, and that was effectively what posters did to trolls and racists. They ganged up on and insulted them. And it got really ugly. It definitely interfered with civil conversation.
I don’t moderate any of the really controversial categories here, but this board is blessed with several people who DO moderate those fora. Let them do what they’ve volunteered to do. And don’t add fuel to the fire.
I’m very sorry for your loss, BigT.
So sorry for your loss, Big T.
Why the hell do people respond to the fuckstick?
Because as long as he’s allowed to post dangerous medical disinformation, people feel compelled to dispute him to save lives.
If everyone ignored him, he’d have no one to talk to. Anyone reading the thread would be able to figure it out. Responding to every inane comment clutters the thread too much for anyone to be able to read a valuable discussion.
True, and it’s the second-best option - first-best, of course, would be the mods taking action. I’ve had him on ignore and refused to engage for quite some time, but others are more public-spirited than I.
Heh. On one thread, at least, there’d be nothing but him spouting bullshit. That Sweden thread probably would have died a natural death months ago, were it not for him.
Problem is, he’d no doubt invade another thread and drown it in baloney.
Oh yes. I’d prefer he’d be at least banned from QZ.
Exactly. I actually wanted to start a thread on the science behind masks, but I know he and a few others with contrarian the shit out of it. Plus, I’m too lazy to put in the effort of a nice OP. LOL.
Also very sorry for your loss @BigT.
And I feel awkward responding to the rest of your posts in the context of your grief but awkwardly I still proceed.
First, no he did not call “apostate Jews” bigots. He did say that Orthodox Jews who categorically cross off Jews who are not Orthodox as apostates are being bigots. I disagree but it is a defensible position.
Given a board in which calling large segments of our American population racists and worse is pretty standard, that is not offensive. As a Jew I certainly experienced no offense.
Now calling a poster
THAT’S a pretty serious thing.
You are literally accusing him of killing people. And sorry if this harsh, but that is delusional.
There are no large hoards of uninformed lurkers reading that forum who will be swayed by posts that you believe are disinformational. There is nothing being said in that regard that the poorly informed are not otherwise being exposed to. Any few lurkers there may be are highly likely already SDMB readers and either have some ideas already or are looking for some critical nonpartisan evaluation of claims made and some broader contextual understanding, beyond the talking point mantras, not just accepting something as fact, but wanting to understand what we really do know, do we really know it, how we know it, and what is uncertain to what degree. Intelligent critical discussion with evaluation and re-evaluation based on new evidence as it comes in, rather than truth first and find evidence later so long as it fits what we already know. Helping each other not only to figure out answers but helping each other figure out what the interesting and important questions are. That is what I have often found on these MBs and has been why I entertain myself here. (And to be very clear, that is what we doing here. We are playing, not saving lives.)
QZ instead is more a church of one brand of orthodoxy eager to burn any heretic who questions the revealed truths. It, like other quasi religious systems plays to emotions and fear but unlike them it wins no converts with that approach.
As recently noted in the ATMB thread, per posted QZ rules you can specify that you want a factual discussion in the OP of a thread and it will be moderated per GQ rules. I have also created a “factual” tag that can be attached to such threads.
That’s what I said he did.
I never said anything about you being offended or even motioned you. Yet you attacked me as lying rather than read what I actually said.
You specifically and how you felt were not in my thoughts at all, frankly.
Not in the slightest. If he is giving out deliberately false information, which I am accusing him of, then he is responsible for people dying who use that information. Just like Trump is responsible for killing people for arguing that masks were bad and pushing that. Or when people talk about the antimaskers who refuse to have any sacrifice to keep people alive–again, they are said to be killing people. I’m not saying anything that isn’t a common moral belief.
And if you don’t want to be harsh, don’t call someone delusional. You can argue with my position without implying that my mind has lost a connection with reality. Outside of a clinical setting, I can’t think of any time someone is called delusional and it’s not an attack.
And, finally, there are facts about this situation, which the subject of this thread ignores. It is not being like a church to want to prevent those falsehoods from being spread. It is not being like a church to follow the motto of this board, to fight ignorance.
That’s the type of thing that anti-atheist Christians argue. The evolutoinists or climate change scientists are some sort of religion.
The people who debate science are the scientists. The rest of us don’t know enough and should always go with the experts. If the experts disagree, fine. But that’s not what happens with this. The people who disagree tend to be in politics, or are discredited scientists.
Even if we don’t know everything yet, there is a scientific consensus. Expecting people to adhere to that is how rationalism works, not some sort of religion.
Most of your post honestly is not worth replying to but let’s get some simple facts straight. He recapped my description of some Orthodox Jews being unwilling to work with secular Jews because they are secular as
You described that as a trollish having “tried to call someone a bigot”. That is really simply not what he did. Other posters reasonably assumed the implication that he call me a bigot. And stating that an individual has bigotry is not calling that person a bigot, is not trollish, is not offensive. Yes you made something up.
I’ll stand by the assessment of a portrayal of him as murdering people with his posts as delusional. Common moral beliefs, the reality that I exist in, do not overlap with that statement. Heck believing statements on this board impact anyone’s behaviors in the context of all other information available is a bit grandiose.
Very very strange to find his saying that a hypothetical patient preference would be based in bigotry is trollish, yet to feel comfortable accusing a poster of murder by posting. Really wow.
You apparently have this view of QZ as a public service announcement, passing on what you think is a clear scientific consensus.
That simply is not what it or any part of the SDMBs are. My experience here in any forum is not to parrot what a consensus is, especially on subjects that don’t always have as much consensus as you think. To the degree that I argue for adherence to a particular set of guidelines (which in my workday I do) I have never found that demanding obedience without question works best to achieve compliance. Questions and doubts are invited. Sometimes even validated as part of the response. They are addressed. Better compliance and outcomes that way.
My condolences BigT. May her memory be a comfort to you. {{{hugs}}}
What’s your problem with me? What have I ever done to you that has you so mad at me?
You attacked me in this thread. Yet I came in and apologized, even though you completely misunderstood what I said. I was sympathetic because I had not come back and clarified.
Then, after I clarify that I was talking about the “apostate Jews” which you mentioned. You come in and say he didn’t call them bigots, but just said they were bigoted. Those are the same thing. I still allowed that maybe you diodn’t realize that and told you that what you said was what I meant. And yet you still come back and pretend I said something different.
What’s more, I specifically told you that the word “delusional” is a hurtful word for me, and that I would appreciate you not use it. You said you weren’t trying to be harsh, so I chose to believe you. But then you come back and use the same word again, this time claiming you’re “sorry.”
I don’t believe it. People who are sorry, who don’t want to be harsh, will change their language. They won’t use the very word that the person told them hurts them. It’s disingenuous as hell to pretend you care with those types of disclaimers.
Arguing people “in the real world” don’t say something is ridiculous when I quoted positions on this board. They’re real people, you know? People have at various times accused those who spread misinformation about the virus intentionally are in fact responsible for the people who die. They will say those who spread antimaskism, like Trump, are killing people. Even the people who won’t wear mask are said to be okay with killing people. Yet you act like it’s some horrible, horrible belief that I think the guy here is “murderous.” Heck, if you read the entire thread, you’d know I already made my argument for why that was so.
And then there’s your most recent post. The one where you are responding to the position taken by basically everyone, the people in this Pit thread, the people in the ATMB thread, and arguing we’re all wrong. Yet you single me out. And, no, it’s not a valid argument: all posts everywhere in public are about spreading whatever idea it is that you want to say.
Putting all that together, it seems pretty clear you’re here to have a fight with me. Even the guy who thought I’d insulted him accepted my apology, but you continue on.
The irony is that I deleted my much more harsh post because of the memory of my mom, who is why I decided that I’d been too much of a dick in the past here, and that I would try to be nicer. And you’re testing my patience more than even that other poster you felt the need to defend.
I’ll say this: I was wrong to apologize to you. I didn’t do anything wrong–you misunderstood. I should not have thought you would be decent. I should have known you hate me, and that you were just interpreting things conveniently to go after me. You were trolling me, and I should have realized it.
I will do my level best to not hate you. But I can’t keep seeing your bigmoji-style face and do that. Good bye.
I’m very sorry for your loss.
For the record, I’m going to be muting this thread. If you have anything you wish to say to me personally (and not about SayTwo or other posters), feel free to PM me.
This is like claiming all drunk drivers that end up killing pedestrians are “murderous”. Are they immoral? Very possible. Are they guilty of murder? Not enough evidence for mens rea in most cases, manslaughter or negligent homicide certainly.
A person can be clinically delusional or just misinformed about mask wearing. That does not mean they are “murderous”, even if their ideas or communication might be harmful or dangerous. That is like saying people who argue, in principle, against (strict) whole food plant based diets are murderous psychopaths since a whole food, plant based diet is, in fact, the healthiest diet that saves lives.
It could be that SayTwo is a murderous psychopath but somehow I doubt it.
This just in, some hilarious hypocrisy:
Thankfully no fronting of intellectual superiority there!