What's it mean when you actively silence, fire, and attempt to publicly and falsely discredit any experts who also know a great deal about the subject and have studied it just as hard, simply because they dared come to a different conclusion?
They went against the big government/big pharma plans to end the pandemic, they had to be silenced for our safety, we shouldn't question these things, because they obviously care about us and couldn't have any alternative motives.
In seriousness - they won't LET them tell us how the science works. That was kind of the point of the conversation
.
Once you get your literacy under control, we can move on to shapes and colors
When "they" censor people with just as many credentials as them for the mere act of disagreeing, "they" are entirely the problem.
deleted
· 2 years ago
That's very ominous and vague, put names to it, who is "censoring" whom? I can only guess you're mistaking peer review for censorship here, or are you really going full Pepe Silvia?
Weird you didn't ask the Op to provide names. Just jumped on their d̶i̶c̶k̶ bandwagon to agree with their narrative automatically. Or maybe just go after anyone who DISAGREED with it. Took you quite awhile to even consider questioning who or what I was talking about.
.
Compliance up 3.25%
▼
·
Edited 2 years ago
deleted
· 2 years ago
What names would I have asked the OP for? And which OP? Karl Boll? Spooky Health Nerd? They clearly did not talk about anyone in particular, just generic experts. And what narrative is to question here when all it narrates is "experts have expertise, non-experts have not"?
.
Now back to you: first claim "they won't LET them tell us how the science works. That was kind of the point of the conversation" - now who's the first "they" and who is "them"? Also there is a small but significant difference between "science" as in general and "the science" as in specifics. Seemingly you're insinuating someone is keeping facts from you. What are you even talking about?
.
Next claim: ""they" censor people with just as many credentials as them for the mere act of disagreeing," - this is talking about something quite specific, so who are "they" and who are "people"? If there's not even one (1) example, what kind of a claim is that supposed to be?
.
Thank you for your contribution to the cause
.
Once you get your literacy under control, we can move on to shapes and colors
.
Compliance up 3.25%
.
Now back to you: first claim "they won't LET them tell us how the science works. That was kind of the point of the conversation" - now who's the first "they" and who is "them"? Also there is a small but significant difference between "science" as in general and "the science" as in specifics. Seemingly you're insinuating someone is keeping facts from you. What are you even talking about?
.
Next claim: ""they" censor people with just as many credentials as them for the mere act of disagreeing," - this is talking about something quite specific, so who are "they" and who are "people"? If there's not even one (1) example, what kind of a claim is that supposed to be?