Coronavirus Pandemic

[Letters]

Fake news often uses factually correct information. It’s the way in which it is presented, what information is crucially missing, as well the context in which those facts are used.

The example I can remember was when the first F1 race was cancelled.
I believe NQ’s grumble was that the headline said the race had been cancelled when at the time that had not been officially announced. I think that in pretty much the first line of the offending article they made it clear what their source was and said that the announcement was expected soon - and so it transpired.

If that’s an example of fake news then we clearly have very different definitions of the term.

[Letters]

So what did Australia do?
They've had fewer than 100 deaths.

https://www.worldometers.info/corona...try/australia/

For a few weeks they were experiencing the same sort of exponential growth which is typical of a disease spreading but then it just stopped

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-first-50-days

One thing they did do early which I don't think we did is make arrivals from other countries quarantine for 14 days. That must have helped
I guess population density is a factor although as spread out as Australia is they do have plenty of large cities.

They seem to have got some things right here which we have got very wrong. It's baffling to me that many people seem to think our government have handled this well.
I'm not saying they've got everything wrong but we are 4th worst in the world for deaths per million so we've clearly got a lot wrong here.

[Niall_Quinn]

Did Powis slip up?

He said that the government presented their modelling (early on in the epidemic here), then quickly corrected himself to say had modelling presented to them.

Probably a slip of the script.

May 7th seems to be the day everything is coalescing around in terms of news about the lockdown and the exit strategy. I suspect the exit strategy and the lockdown will end up being the same thing, with most people told to remain at home until, yes.

[Niall_Quinn]

Fake news often uses factually correct information. It’s the way in which it is presented, what information is crucially missing, as well the context in which those facts are used.

Here's a breathtaking example of fake news using a clever method that takes the norm, turns it upside down and then criticises the perversion of reality. It's quite stunning the lengths these journalists will go to to misinform the public and serve agendas that are in direct opposition to the public interest.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-patients.html

The Mail used a similar technique with the "spike" in deaths from ingestion of bleach after Trump "advised people to inject it", the latter being an example of an emergent and even more alarming phase of the fake news onslaught where they don't bother to try to conceal the lies. They just openly lie. Then repeat across as many outlets as possible for as long as it takes to invade the zeitgeist.

The horrific reality of all this is governments are just as susceptible to the devious tactics and corrosive effects of mainstream fake news as the public. Governments are now devising policy designed to avoid criticism by media organisations that will simply print whatever is required to portray the target in the worst possible light. Example, the 100K tests. How could any minister have been stupid enough to wander into that? But they had little choice because the media simply ran incessant criticism equating the UK's testing regime to a manufactured scandal. I wish just one politician had enough balls to call these repeaters out by asking them detailed questions about the testing procedure and pointing out why numbers are irrelevant and effective targeting is everything. But instead it because a numbers game, policy was hijacked and the media got a month's worth of coverage from it.

The mainstream media is a huge problem and only one person of note seems to be addressing it.

[Niall_Quinn]

Once again, please seek out David Icke, watch his stuff, have a laugh if that's what you prefer. It's not about him, it's about pissing right back in the face of any cunt who censors or approves of censorship. I don't care if Icke is talking about Borg invasions of the UK. In a free country he should still be allowed to say whatever the fuck he wants provided it doesn't break the NATURAL law (fuck their statutes, btw).

If you have a brain in your head (and that's a debatable assumption for so many graduates of this modern "democracy") what the fuck harm do you suffer if some bloke is talking about mystical levitation or whatever? Let him speak. Are you so scared or so dumb that you can't withstand simple speech? But what if you aren't braindead? What if you have electrical activity in your brain? What happens if there's only ONE noise being repeated day after day, like a fucking air raid siren hammering in your brain? One message. Over and over. No dissent. No variance. Just the same repeating, mainstream, fake news bullshit. Over and over. You might as well be braindead, intelligence be damned.

And that's the end goal of all censorship, to limit thought to the one inevitable response from a single input. So wherever you can find Icke, fire him up, play the whole thing, listen, don't listen but play it through so the watchers can measure your defiance and their failure in hours, minutes, seconds.



Disclaimer: For those feeling the urge to post, "Well Icke talks about lizard people!!!!", yeah, that's not the point numbnuts. Censorship is the point. And if you can provide one example where censorship is a good thing, have at it.

[Letters]

Morgan (don't get excited about the rose, he's not dead)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52525122

[Letters]

Disclaimer: For those feeling the urge to post, "Well Icke talks about lizard people!!!!", yeah, that's not the point numbnuts. Censorship is the point. And if you can provide one example where censorship is a good thing, have at it.

This is a tricky one but it's a common misconception that free speech means you can say whatever you want. It does not. You can't, for example, shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre because that might cause a panic and stampede and people could get hurt or die. Well, unless the theatre is indeed on fire of course, then you're covered. And there's the issue. Is what Icke is saying true?
That's where you get into difficulty because who is the arbiter of what is true?

If you shouted "SQUIRREL!" in a crowded theatre when there wasn't one then people might look, notice there is no squirrel, conclude you to be mad and then get on with their day. No-one is actually going to come to harm. Shout "FIRE!" and they might.

If Icke blathers on about the royals being lizard people then fine, he's either a mentalist or an attention seeker or, most likely, both. But no-one is actually going to come to harm. And YouTube has let him get on with that sort of bullshit for years.
But if he starts telling people that Covid-19 is linked to 5G, or connected with Jewish cults then there are dangers there. Idiots have attacked 5G masts, claiming a connection with Jewish cults could lead to antisemitism. There are not benign claims.

I don't think anyone is trying to censor or squash Icke because his narrative is not in the mainstream - for years that has been true and he has been free to spout his nonsense. But when he starts saying things which:
1) Aren't true and
2) Could cause people to come to harm if they believe them.

Then I'd suggest there is an issue. But the key here is the first part. If what he's saying is true and it's being squashed then there's an issue. I don't think that's the case here but there is an issue over who decides what is true.

[Mac76]

Morgan (don't get excited about the rose, he's not dead)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52525122

There's still time

[Mac76]

This is a tricky one but it's a common misconception that free speech means you can say whatever you want. It does not. You can't, for example, shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre because that might cause a panic and stampede and people could get hurt or die. Well, unless the theatre is indeed on fire of course, then you're covered. And there's the issue. Is what Icke is saying true?
That's where you get into difficulty because who is the arbiter of what is true?

If you shouted "SQUIRREL!" in a crowded theatre when there wasn't one then people might look, notice there is no squirrel, conclude you to be mad and then get on with their day. No-one is actually going to come to harm. Shout "FIRE!" and they might.

If Icke blathers on about the royals being lizard people then fine, he's either a mentalist or an attention seeker or, most likely, both. But no-one is actually going to come to harm. And YouTube has let him get on with that sort of bullshit for years.
But if he starts telling people that Covid-19 is linked to 5G, or connected with Jewish cults then there are dangers there. Idiots have attacked 5G masts, claiming a connection with Jewish cults could lead to antisemitism. There are not benign claims.

I don't think anyone is trying to censor or squash Icke because his narrative is not in the mainstream - for years that has been true and he has been free to spout his nonsense. But when he starts saying things which:
1) Aren't true and
2) Could cause people to come to harm if they believe them.

Then I'd suggest there is an issue. But the key here is the first part. If what he's saying is true and it's being squashed then there's an issue. I don't think that's the case here but there is an issue over who decides what is true.

[Globalgunner]

No its a dumb post full of Letters usual whataboutism. Free speech is about opinions, everyone can have an opinion and should be free to espouse it whether some deem it stupid, surreal or bizarre. The lame "FIRE" allegory is not an example of an opinion. That is premeditated act of harm. We all need to be smart, have a healthy skepticism of everything we hear especially in these times. Governments around the world depend on our stupidity and innate sheep herd mentality. People who have started wars on complete bogus claims should no longer enjoy the benefit of the doubt. My guess is we are heading towards a so called vaccine that everyone MUST take. If you refuse, you will be declared persona non grata. Your job taken and your assets frozen, while people like Letters cheer them on.

If Icke is inciting people to take up arms against government or its institutions, then maybe there is a case. I dont see flat earthers being banned on any platform. What they say is patently not true. They ban you when you are starting to worry them. No other reason.