Fauci Spins His Handy 'Wheel Of Science' To See What He Should Recommend Today

submitted by [deleted] from babylonbee.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]madcow-5 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

So you're not referring to anything real, just making stuff up?

The left is the anti truth party. Worse than the evangelical right ever was in the 2000's.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

The left is the anti truth party.

The exact opposite of this. Thousands of lies from the Trump admin will never compare with anything on the left. (You could bring up yellow dog Democrats in the 1970s, but your comments indicate that you have no idea about political history.)

[–]madcow-5 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

I'm an adult who's lived through American politics for the last 30 years.

Your comments lately have been really low tier. You're not fooling anybody by posting the opposite of reality.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Of all the people I've met on Saidit, madcow, it seems you consistently want to focus on the exact opposite of reality. It must be difficult to have a normal conversation with people who are not on Saidit or people who do not agree with you. (I am not saying this to be mean. It's an observation. I'll soon stop posting on Saidit. It's been interesting to see these kinds of posts from you, and it's also sad and some others on Saidit are so completely brainwashed by the right-wing lies. For some on Saidit, there is some middle-ground between their views and mine, even if I argue with these people. In your case, there is no real dialogue, mainly because you never have reliable evidence to support arguments about this alternate universe where left-wing people somehow hate science and the truth. You obviously refuse to believe what's really happening. It probably won't end well.)

[–]NodeThis is my flair. There are many like it, but this one is mine. 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

left-wing people somehow hate science and the truth

Anyone browsing the internet sees a hundred examples of this every day. Note: That's called exaggeration. Maybe it's only 20 or 30, but it's enough that even you would run across them.

Thousands of lies from the Trump admin will never compare with anything on the left.

The phenomenon of TDS is both amazing, and tacit proof that there is no 'hope' for our species. Half of the country thought Trump was Hitler, and the other half took the hate of the first half as reason to support him. TDS apparently has profound effects on the vision and processing centers in the brain that allow one to perceive reality.

It must be difficult to have a normal conversation with people who [normie]

It is. I've never been to Disneyland or a similar place, but have read about their techniques for creating a credible fantasy experience in their targets (customers). The media environment is very much like that, and most people IRL around here buy it completely. CNN told them. Newsweek and [company name] sold them the same pitch. It's reinforced in that unrelated article in the CostCo magazine. Reddit/twatter/faceberg/etc delete any mention of a counternarrative. "See, science agrees!"

The reality is that the lower 80% across the whole political spectrum are "not bright", and are very easily manipulated into fulfilling the purposes of their 'owner-operators'. Look at the results, not the stories and claims and promises and outright lies of those running the show.

PS: Don't use television comedians as a news source.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

(Per the thread) Anti-science propaganda is primarily - if not entirely - right-wing disinformation or misinformation

(And you do not know who I am or how smart the "lower 80%" are)

[–]jet199Instigatrix 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You just have confirmation bias and don't see it when your side does it. That's all.

The left constantly go against whats been proven in social sciences and psychological studies when it goes against their ideology. That's why they can't fix any of the social problems they claim to care more about than the right.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is itself an opinion about opinions (ala Fox News &c), rather than an assessment of the core differences in the approaches of the 'left' and 'right'

[–]NodeThis is my flair. There are many like it, but this one is mine. 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

https://ibb.co/hcsvWPG

Here's some IQ distribution science! As for your practice of labeling anything that doesn't conform to the beliefs they installed in you as "right-wing disinformation", that's not very sciency.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I cannot find the

national longitudinal survey of labor market experience of youth 1980-1990

or

Johnny Johnson

The IQ distribution might reflect circumstances of "youth" in a certain area or profession. IQ is not the only measure of intelligence. Thus this example may be accurate and 'scientific', but this is also part of the field of 'social science'. It also bears no relation to the present thread about anti-science and the left or right.

And the right-wing disinformation campaign is not as much scientific as it is social, or also a social science.

[–]NodeThis is my flair. There are many like it, but this one is mine. 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

https://saidit.net/s/videos/comments/7aba/socialist_group_cheering_censorship_gets_banned/

Here's a guy you probably like.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I tried listening to it just now, and I gave it a vote, but I've never managed to listen much of his material, mainly because he and commentators like him give the false impression that both political parties are very similar, or they are polar opposites (whereas there are important differences and some common ground). His approaches to the evidence are also annoying, where he continues to force only one narrative, with the tone of 'here's an example', 'here's another example' and continued ranting with affirmations of his points. It's what's wrong with political discourse in general for those who want to polarize the issues in order to get attention, clicks and views. It's a business rather than a genuine study of the issues. I often like the Sunday morning round-table discussions of politics on 3 MSM TV stations, where they try to mix points of view.

[–]madcow-5 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You were literally just asked what you were referring to by "the evils of science", and refused to explain.

I didn't attack you, I asked you to explain what you were referring to, and you refused.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A good example is climate change. Ever since it became a major political issue in the 90s, the attacks on the science have usually come from the right. Even long after the evidence in favor of it had become overwhelming, you had people on the right denouncing it as some hippie conspiracy.

It is true that there are rich people trying to capitalize on it by lobbying for subsidies, funding for technologies that aren't cost efficient or that have limited scale, etc. It's also true that you have people on the left fighting against good solutions like nuclear because of hysteria about meltdowns.

Those are legitimate debate topics. However, the basic question of whether the burning of fossil fuels is putting more greenhouse gases into the air and strengthening the greenhouse effect, raising surface temperatures which leads to habitat destruction, loss of arable land, and sea level rise, is pretty well settled at this point.

As I recall, you yourself claimed the science was far from settled not too long ago. You hold this belief not because it's what the scientists are telling you, but because it's what the pundits on the right working for corporations & the rich have been telling you.