Yeah, I wish there was some remnant of politically unagitated reporting left. I’ve learned to read the facts between the lines and just disregard the propaganda. Something like John’s Monkeying with the Mainstream Media tool, but that instead of highlighting newspeak corrects it into oldspeak.
1 Like
See headline of the previous article you just posted. I suggest that you are not doing a good job of it. Ad hominem attacks are a dead give away. The easiest sign of propaganda.
Edit: Not to mention the that the attempt to discredit by saying someone made money is a method of deception. Given that almost all good people earn money, it relies on people not asking themselves whether everything anyone has ever produced is fraudulent because they made money. Don’t eat that carrot, the farmer made money.
The people you should be most weary of are those that don’t earn money, but receive funding. Earning money is when you are paid by another in exchange for what you produced. Those that receive money are not required to produce anything of value that anyone would pay for.
Yes, there are frauds. There are people that trick you into thinking that you are exchanging your money for a good or service of value when in fact their is no good or service provided. I will call them a market fraud. The only difference between a fraud that is “funded” versus a market fraud is the funded fraud doesn’t have to even try to convince you. They get money either way.
8 Likes
Yeah, this particular article was a sub-par choice. I’ve read about this matter a while back, and I only took a cursory look at the search results when I posted it. Here’s some better information on this phenomenon:
- America's Frontline Doctors - Wikipedia
- Let's Amplify the Real Front-line Physicians | AAFP
- Right-Wing Doctors Keep Peddling Dubious COVID Drugs | TIME
Happy to address more specific issues. I have been tracking the C19 science in a lot of detail.
1 Like
Your third example is “Right wing” is an Ad hominem attack.
5 Likes
I don’t think it can be seen that way. Yes, AFD have a political slant, and it’s a fact. But I don’t think it should be interpreted as an automatic discreditation. I do think putting it in the heading is redundant - and conflicts with Time wanting to be a bipartisan publication. At the same time, AFD’s effective expertise is compromised by them taking a political stance - as doctors of a different political affinity won’t want to be a part of it.
1 Like
This is a quote from Devon Eriksen’s tweet on the topic of Palmer Lucky getting run out of Facebook. I don’t know Palmer Lucky or the exact details of the history with Facebook, but it appears he got run out for being “Right-Wing”.
Devon worked at Facebook on the same project (Occulus).
Nobody wanted to be labeled “far right”, because the same communist lunatics who were carrying on these witch hunts in the first place had convinced the public zeitgeist that “far right” meant something horrible.
But at the same time, they were labelled the basic philosophical underpinnings of our society, from freedom of conscience to freedom of religion to freedom of expression to freedom of association, as “far right” ideals.
I think the word labelled is a typo, but I didn’t want to change the quote.
I hope or I wish the legal system would allow the people that use these labels to be sued and not only by the individual(s) that got attacked, but as a class action law suit. Every time this label is used it directly harms me. It harms me for the reason Devon points out. Because I support these freedoms, I am considered “far right”. More and more these days, if I bring up freedoms, the people I am talking to are associating me with some whack job. Judging me to be some radical because I say that Chauvin is innocent until proven guilty or that it is important that all people including Chauvin get a fair trial.
They are directly impacting my rights. I feel something close to fear when defending these freedoms wondering if I might not get labeled far right. I retired, but that fear was real when I was employed.
Wouldn’t it be great if the 81 million people that voted for Trump filed lawsuits in every State against anyone that used these Ad hominem attacks. Insinuating at the very least that people that voted for Trump were all “Right Wing”.
6 Likes
Exactly… I held back posting yesterday on the very same topic. Example: any website advocating for a cause with a domain name like advocacycause.org. Case in point the so-called long covid website which is funded/supported by WHN - World Health Network. Founded and funded by NECSI. At any rate, these are all self limiting in the long term (hopefully), but still take a lot of mind share.
6 Likes
In all fairness, Palmer is a good capitalist, since he realized much more money can be made with the DIB. He’s the founder of Anduril Industries, which was previously discussed here Modern Warfare - #50 by johnwalker
4 Likes
I think you missed the point of my first reply. You seem to think I wanted to debate on the effectiveness of Ivermectin.
Anyone that wants to be productive has to be concerned about their credibility. They need to have credibility with their coworkers and customers as well as their management. Notice I did not say wants to get ahead. You can do very well without credibility if you do not need to produce.
You loose credibility when you insult your customers or coworkers. Credibility isn’t just about competence. The smugnorant never understand this. Being smug feeds their need to feel superior which is more important to them than actually producing something of value. In the real world the smugnorant don’t produce much. They may get ahead financially or title wise, but they never really produce jack. They can’t because nothing of value to society is solely independent work. An author can write a book, but they need a customer in order to have produced something of value to society. This isn’t about self worth or personal accomplishment.
Nobody at the government agency seems to understand that this type of behavior hurts their credibility. They have no comprehension of how much damage this does to not only their specific agency, but the health care industry. This is why they are idiots.
The web page itself is so smug in of itself. That they had to be ordered by a court to take it down, is just mind numbing. That is about as arrogant as you can get. To think that something is so clever that you would go to court to keep it up is beyond arrogant.
Thus, they are smugnorant.
My speculation is this is the end state of all institutions that do not have to produce something of value that others are willing to pay for without coercion. They end up losing credibility because they don’t understand it. They think credibility hangs on their wall, because they got published or because they received a check. They rationalize the value of their work and convince themselves it is of value, but it is just rationalization. The person that holds the same type of position (unearned paycheck), will confirm their rationalization because that person also is convincing themselves they produce something of value. That all goes away when you have to convince someone to trade value for value.
If there are productive people in those institutions, it is likely they care about providing value. When these people do not call out behavior that destroys the credibility of the institution, there is no way that institution will self correct.
They can sit around in a circle asking each other why those ignorant people aren’t doing what us smart people tell them all they want. Blaming your customer, coworker or whatever outside entity is the hallmark of the unproductive. They always have an excuse. They don’t even understand that sooner or later if your institution has no credibility it will not exist and nobody wants to hire the smugnorant.
“Pa says we in the cattle bidness. I reckon y’all ain’t no cattle and pa says we can’t kill ya lessen you a hog or a cattle.”
5 Likes
I’ve reread your original note, and yes.
I’m seeing the decay of institutions, and in large part this is a consequence of politization - the contamination of the mission with a politically partisan agenda.
The answer to politization isn’t politization from the other side: this just breaks up society into a state of cold civil war.
Instead, it’s a return to the mission, which pulls together those dedicated to the mission from a wide chunk of the political spectrum.
2 Likes
Do you suppose that might be why only 22% of US physicians belong to the AMA? Do you believe that organization to be politically un-biased? Yeah, right, like NPR, whose substantive response to the assertion they are left-leaning (meaning they “lean” 89 degrees left out of a possible 90 degree angle to the left); (Of course, simultaneously, if zero degrees on a compass is centrist, any angle > 1 degree is extreme right wing); (when was the last time any legacy “medium” used the term “extreme left wing”? - does it even exist?).
8 Likes
You see the unit they just put in charge of NPR? I use “unit” when unsure what the preferred pronouns of an individual are. Either unit or entity or node.
6 Likes
Wow, very cool stat, way below what I’d expect. This actually makes it more viable to do some trust-busting and fix healthcare.
2 Likes
Only the NAME “American Medical Association” lends that lefty outfit any credibility at all. It’s fascist, really, as it is an NGO component of the deep state. We were more or less automatically enrolled when I graduated med school in 1977. Realizing way back then what they stood for, I quit shortly thereafter.
BTW, Talk about the power of propaganda to install ‘the big lie’: Isn’t it surprising that one must still point out that the fact that the primary exemplar of fascism in the 20th century was NOT on the right side of the political spectrum? NAZI Germany by its own terms stood for “National Socialism”. Socialism, to paraphrase Milton Friedman, is always and everywhere a creature of the left.
8 Likes
LOL! I hope you don’t mind if I steal that one and use it myself.
2 Likes
We ae in a post rule of law world.
No matter how strong an anti-leftist suit is, there is a substantial chance the plaintiff will lose and be sanctioned and their attorneys disbarred. Forget about weak cases.
No matter how weak a leftist suit is, there is a substantial chance the plaintiff will win.
8 Likes
“human resource” is a slightly more polite version, at least for now.
1 Like
I have pills
1 Like
Biden didn’t get 81 million votes.
Neither did Trump 
1 Like
I think you are forgetting that there are those that identify as cats or other animals.
Unit is neutral as to whether the subject is human. 
4 Likes