Jump to content

Protecting Second Life From Hate Groups Hiding & Organizing Here


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 363 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Life is so much easier if you restrict yourself to seeing and hearing people you already know you agree with.

Dialogue? Discussion? Different perspectives? New information?

Pffft. That's for SJWs!

But at the end of the day is there any real difference between blocking people and their ideas or articles on websites you don't like? I see it time and again where an idea presented on a Right wing site or even one non political but challenging of what is considered to be mainstream science is brushed off without consideration. No dialogue, no discussion, closed minded to a different perspective or new information.

To me this is treading very close to the pot and kettle syndrome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

They counted the votes three times, got essentially the same answer three times, so where do the shenanigans fit in? 

Immaterial. The shenanigans were still there regardless of whether the count was correct. Its like that idea where some will lie when the truth would have served them better.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

They counted the votes three times, got essentially the same answer three times, so where do the shenanigans fit in? 

You mean the shenanigans where the president called the Georgia Secretary of State and said "Couldn't you just...I dunno find 10000 votes?" that was shared with the public? Or the super sekrit kind of shenanigans that you have to read non deep state news for?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

But at the end of the day is there any real difference between blocking people and their ideas or articles on websites you don't like? I see it time and again where an idea presented on a Right wing site or even one non political but challenging of what is considered to be mainstream science is brushed off without consideration. No dialogue, no discussion, closed minded to a different perspective or new information.

To me this is treading very close to the pot and kettle syndrome.

Who says we don't read them?

In fact, I went quite closely through the abstracts of a couple of papers you cited regarding the use of HCQ across different nations, and gave you, I think, a pretty detailed rundown on why they were invalid.

I don't recall you responding.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

But at the end of the day is there any real difference between blocking people and their ideas or articles on websites you don't like? I see it time and again where an idea presented on a Right wing site or even one non political but challenging of what is considered to be mainstream science is brushed off without consideration. No dialogue, no discussion, closed minded to a different perspective or new information.

To me this is treading very close to the pot and kettle syndrome.

I read them when I've had a bad day and need a good laugh.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Janet Voxel said:

You mean the shenanigans where the president called the Georgia Secretary of State and said "Couldn't you just...I dunno find 10000 votes?" that was shared with the public? Or the super sekrit kind of shenanigans that you have to read non deep state news for?

Oh, no I mean the totally really real shenanigans where the fake numbers just happened to be exactly the same as the real ones, but it was a huge fraud. The conspirators were trying to change tens of thousands of votes but were so bad at their jobs they got caught and didn’t change any.

Edited by Lyssa Greymoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

Oh, no I mean the totally really real shenanigans where the fake numbers just happened to be exactly the same as the real ones, but it was a huge fraud. The conspirators were trying to change tens of thousands of votes but were so bad at their jobs they didn’t change any.

Now, now....try to be fair. They did find like 15 votes that weren't counted for Trump....game changer right there.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Who says we don't read them?

In fact, I went quite closely through the abstracts of a couple of papers you cited regarding the use of HCQ across different nations, and gave you, I think, a pretty detailed rundown on why they were invalid.

I don't recall you responding.

You're right, I didn't. I mulled over what you had written for a couple days because quite honestly I really had no clue where to start. No doubt you explained it well enough but it was mostly over my head and since I was busy with R/L, just didn't have the time to puzzle it through. I still think the treatments mentioned under the various categories @ hcqmeta.com have a lot of validity but I don't have the expertise to convince those who are not interested in alternative solutions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Immaterial. The shenanigans were still there regardless of whether the count was correct. Its like that idea where some will lie when the truth would have served them better.

Did you even bother reading anything besides known conspiracy theory sites?  Did you read the article from USA Today which does lean to the right but has never been accused of being a fake news resource by anyone except perhaps trump?  It's not hard to debunk most of articles your.post as being from nutjob sites.

Edited by RowanMinx
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Thats not debunking, but simply pointing out that it isn't Democrat approved reading material

You keep thinking it has something to do with a party.  It has to do with not spouting unsubstantiated information as fact which is what a lot of the sites you post from do and it's dangerous.  

Anyway, facts are not what you're looking for so I'll bow out of this and let you believe all the conspiracies you'd like.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just here to offer refreshments for the weary.

8abe0e8b4f3b28c7cec22fbcb9568d09.thumb.jpg.bfb45e97520dcc5ffb55ca156bee506a.jpg

Best-Bacon-Breakfast-Charcuterie-Board-1.thumb.jpg.4f67062e78f0bc3a434739cf4cbe7921.jpg

veggie-platter.thumb.jpg.7659762ae4bd2bc08be38c11f7988135.jpg

Smoked-Salmon-and-Eggs-Breakfast-Platter-Whole30.thumb.jpg.3299d5a736dfbc9bb351e20552ccc27b.jpg

flavours-for-fruit-juice-drinks-500x500.jpg.55290b413c4e72545b741b8a050305cd.jpg

keto_drinks.thumb.jpg.76995bbeef31c3dc736ab2acd50fb656.jpg

And don't forget your plates, cutlery and napkins, all eco-friendly, plant them when you're done eating and replenish the earth (they probably aren't really, but I can make plates and napkins that are, and are seeded too)

00f1182f-462f-4241-b8d6-269c850e5e64.d8822e43a9ffb073a4a92340b67a8e5e.thumb.jpeg.6713b1d8bb48833920ae372fcc23535f.jpeg

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Adamburp Adamczyk said:

oh I had pondered  that, but there's the whole issue of a) naming and shaming that Governance will react to, and b) the same categories i referred too crying in reports about my posts.  So I can't post it :(

Aaaaaaaaaaaw.....

Edited by Vivienne Schell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

But at the end of the day is there any real difference between blocking people and their ideas or articles on websites you don't like? I see it time and again where an idea presented on a Right wing site or even one non political but challenging of what is considered to be mainstream science is brushed off without consideration. No dialogue, no discussion, closed minded to a different perspective or new information.

To me this is treading very close to the pot and kettle syndrome.

Science does not challenge  1+1=2. And if some people at so called "altenative" (ahem) websites claim that 1+1=3 in the headline, why bother to read the rest? Why should i have a dialogue with someone who either has no brain or is a cynic psycho?

 

Edited by Vivienne Schell
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tari Landar said:

I'm just here to offer refreshments for the weary.

8abe0e8b4f3b28c7cec22fbcb9568d09.thumb.jpg.bfb45e97520dcc5ffb55ca156bee506a.jpg

Best-Bacon-Breakfast-Charcuterie-Board-1.thumb.jpg.4f67062e78f0bc3a434739cf4cbe7921.jpg

veggie-platter.thumb.jpg.7659762ae4bd2bc08be38c11f7988135.jpg

Smoked-Salmon-and-Eggs-Breakfast-Platter-Whole30.thumb.jpg.3299d5a736dfbc9bb351e20552ccc27b.jpg

flavours-for-fruit-juice-drinks-500x500.jpg.55290b413c4e72545b741b8a050305cd.jpg

keto_drinks.thumb.jpg.76995bbeef31c3dc736ab2acd50fb656.jpg

And don't forget your plates, cutlery and napkins, all eco-friendly, plant them when you're done eating and replenish the earth (they probably aren't really, but I can make plates and napkins that are, and are seeded too)

00f1182f-462f-4241-b8d6-269c850e5e64.d8822e43a9ffb073a4a92340b67a8e5e.thumb.jpeg.6713b1d8bb48833920ae372fcc23535f.jpeg

 

 

While I am not religious at all.......... BLESS YOU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 363 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...