And what exactly was the conspiracy? The vaccines, which made a lot of money but were worthless? Or was the whole pandemic a worldwide medical or Big Pharma hoax? Were the millions who died just crisis actors? Curious minds want to know.
Should we retrogress to the pre-germ era when malaria was caused by bad air so as to not change the narrative? Or should we allow science to do what it does - pursue knowledge and make empirically supported changes?
You keep using the word “conspiracy” as a deflection. In other words, conjuring up an evil cabal in some smoky room plotting on how to fabricate a fictitious crisis. Occam’s Razor: actually believing in a uniquely pernicious virus, too-well-connected world leaders fall one by one, monkey see/monkey do fashion, none of them willing to risk having blood on their hands.
I use the word "conspiracy" because that was the best I could make out of the comments of another poster, who instead of explaining himself just said that I was slow. And reading your posts, I've gotten even slower. Maybe I'm losing some brain cells. So just forget it.
This is exactly the central issue, and exactly why I can never support DeSantis, who has basically never fails to answer your critical question with “me.”
Now this is an intriguing post. Clearly most think they are less partisan than the other guy, but they don’t normally state it so bluntly. Specifically, in what ways am I more partisan than you?
I could be wrong, but my first clue was that you took pains to mention DeSantis on an RFK Jr thread that’s taken a turn to vaccines.
Sorry, I was indirectly responding to a post of yours that I didn’t quote: While I don’t doubt that many on the left are in favor of regulation for the reasons you state, ie they know the “true” science, I think the right is just as willing to regulate out conversation they deem unacceptable, as DeSantis openly states. And I wasn’t joking about my admiration for your question, “The problem with misinformation is who gets to define it”. It has got to be among the most important and least appreciated aspects in politics. It was highly appreciated by American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, who put it as pointedly as can be: Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy: Do not block the way of inquiry.
None of us are guaranteed another day. People do die young. But damned if there doesn’t seem to be a lot of it going around these days … Jeffrey Carlson, actor who played groundbreaking transgender character on "All My Children," dead at 48 - CBS News
I would not characterize what RFK Jr and other such conspiracy theorists routinely throw out as “inquiry”.
I haven’t heard of this. Thanks. He sounds a lot like Hayek, who I quite admire. Oddly, these two Austrian contemporaries don’t seem to have interacted much. I would definitely recommend Hayek, if you haven’t read him. Maybe try the The Constitution of Liberty. As for your central question of who decides what is proper speech, I would highly recommend Jonathan Rauch’s Kindly Inquisitors. It’s short and extremely readable. One of my favorite books.
Thanks and oh yes, I know Hayek. The author of my book would call himself a classical liberal in the style of Burke.
I surmise that the Covid/Vaccine Conspiratorial Cohort is largely populated by non-science degree holders. There is no other logical explanation.
Prescient … "Combustible Mixture Of Ignorance & Power" - Carl Sagan Warned 'Authoritarian Science' Would "Blow Up In Our Faces" | ZeroHedge
