FOX News: the right wing source of truth

[billvon 2,384]

13 hours ago, metalslug said:

Ah, c'mon now. The left has already clarified what science is. Those naïve Reps thought it was an objective field.

Uh, no.  He USES science to do his job.  So do I.  It's fairly humbling to know that no matter how much you talk, how winning your personality is, or how rich you are, the universe will still work the way it always does.  It doesn't care about political memes or who you like on Facebook.

If I do a good job, my systems work.

If Fauci does a good job, few Americans die.  If he does a bad job, we look like Italy when they decided to ignore science in favor of their economy.  They hit a 9% death rate before cooler heads prevailed - because viruses don't care how good your economy is.

[metalslug 31]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

Uh, no.  He USES science to do his job. 

Uh, no. "When People Criticize Me, They Are Really Criticizing Science, Because I Represent Science". You realize he actually said this, right? ..as though he's the single source of all truth on the subject. Although I myself regarded much of Fauci's (Covid) advice as plausible my point here is not to re-debate Covid specifically; for anyone to proclaim omniscience of any field on which there is significant contradictory evidence and opposing opinion from credentialed peers, is an unfortunate characteristic of lefty dogma. To (absurdly) parody that Reps 'don't know what science is' when I'm quite certain anyone here could easily name several credentialed conservative scientists. It's about as 'funny' and as accurate as a meme that portrays all progressives as sexual deviants.

[billvon 2,384]

28 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Uh, no. "When People Criticize Me, They Are Really Criticizing Science, Because I Represent Science". You realize he actually said this, right? 

Yes.

Now let's look at the whole quote.

"Anybody who's looking at this carefully realizes that there's a distinct anti-science flavor to this. So if they get up and criticize science, nobody's going to know what they're talking about. But if they get up and really aim their bullets at Tony Fauci, well, people could recognize there's a person there. There's a face, there's a voice you can recognize, you see him on television. So it's easy to criticize, but they're really criticizing science because I represent science."

See?  He is not saying that he is science.  He is saying that he REPRESENTS science to those anti-science people, and he is a convenient target.  The same way that conservatives who attack Buzz Lightyear are attacking woke culture.  They don't just say "I don't like woke culture" they say "Disney SUCKS!  Buzz Lightyear SUCKS!  Shoving filth down my daughter's throat.  Boycott it!"  That way they have a concrete thing to attack.

I get the same thing here as a moderator.  I fully recognize that when people go after me in PM's, they're often not attacking me.  They are attacking rules they don't like because I am the face of those rules - to those people, I represent the rules.  But it's easier to attack me than have to post "I disagree with the rules" and have most people ignore them.

[metalslug 31]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

He is not saying that he is science.  He is saying that he REPRESENTS science to those anti-science people, and he is a convenient target.  

He's conflating anti-Fauci people with 'anti-science' people. His belief that those two terms are synonymous is rather the point I'm making.  Other representatives of science exist who do not share all Fauci's views.

1 hour ago, billvon said:

I get the same thing here as a moderator.  I fully recognize that when people go after me in PM's, they're often not attacking me.  They are attacking rules they don't like because I am the face of those rules 

If you're placing a set of subjective internet forum rules and protests about the fairness of them as being analogous to science debates....   perhaps kallend can find you a meme for that too.

[jakee 1,254]

2 hours ago, metalslug said:

Uh, no. "When People Criticize Me, They Are Really Criticizing Science, Because I Represent Science". You realize he actually said this, right? ..as though he's the single source of all truth on the subject. Although I myself regarded much of Fauci's (Covid) advice as plausible my point here is not to re-debate Covid specifically; for anyone to proclaim omniscience of any field on which there is significant contradictory evidence and opposing opinion from credentialed peers, is an unfortunate characteristic of lefty dogma.

Uh, no. You’ve completely mischaracterised what he’s saying. What he means is that he is the public face of scientific advice on dealing with covid. He’s not saying he personally came up with all the science or that he’s omniscient, he’s saying that he’s a lightning rod for criticism from anyone who doesn’t like Covid safety measures because he’s the guy they see on TV talking about it.

Given that he also actually said this in the same interview the sentence before the one you quoted, why are you lying about it?

He also spent a significant amount of time in that same interview discussing the mistakes that were made and the delays in recognising certain things about how Covid works that affected the advice he had given. Can’t you see how ignorant your claim that he was saying he thinks he’s omniscient looks in the context of actually listening to what the man said?

You know, if you ever decided to step outside the right wing culture war bubble you might be an interesting person to talk to. It’s really a shame you chose that path.

[jakee 1,254]

8 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Other representatives of science exist who do not share all Fauci's views.

Oh, so you do believe it’s possible for a person to represent science?

Please explain who those people are, and why you think they are the omniscient single source of truth in their fields.

 

But anyway, if you think he was talking about other scientists in his field legitimately advising a different path you clearly didn’t watch the interview you’re referencing, and haven’t been awake for the last 2.5 years.

[metalslug 31]

3 minutes ago, jakee said:

What he means is that he is the public face of scientific advice on dealing with covid. He’s not saying he personally came up with all the science or that he’s omniscient, he’s saying that he’s a lightning rod for criticism from anyone who doesn’t like Covid safety measures because he’s the guy they see on TV talking about it.

When one is the Chief Medical Advisor to POTUS and impacting Federal decisions, it's a little more than a hapless or incidental lightning rod.

2 minutes ago, jakee said:

Oh, so you do believe it’s possible for a person to represent science?

Please explain who those people are, and why you think they are the omniscient single source of truth in their fields.

Strawman much?  I made no such claim that any scientists are omniscient. They each represent a perspective on science. Fortunately scientists agree on more things than they disagree and should be more accepting of debate in contested areas, rather than to equate anti-Fauci with anti-science.

With reference to the OP; not long ago some progressive 'truths' included; 'The Hunter laptop is a Russian fabrication' and 'Unvaccinated people are more contagious than vaccinated people and should be ostracized'.  Fox News seems to be a source of 'truth' as good as any from the left spectrum. 

[jakee 1,254]

3 hours ago, metalslug said:

When one is the Chief Medical Advisor to POTUS and impacting Federal decisions, it's a little more than a hapless or incidental lightning rod.

Hapless or incidental? What on earth are you talking about?

3 hours ago, metalslug said:

Strawman much?  I made no such claim that any scientists are omniscient. They each represent a perspective on science. Fortunately scientists agree on more things than they disagree and should be more accepting of debate in contested areas, rather than to equate anti-Fauci with anti-science.

You said that Fauci was claiming to be omniscient because he said he represented science. You can’t possibly have forgotten that already, so why be dishonest?

Fauci was talking about the political motivated criticism he received in the real world by Republican lawmakers and their right wing supporters, and that really was anti science. He’s not talking in hypotheticals, he’s talking about what actually happened. In order for your criticism of Fauci’s statement to have any merit whatsoever you literally have to ignore reality.

3 hours ago, metalslug said:

With reference to the OP; not long ago some progressive 'truths' included; 'The Hunter laptop is a Russian fabrication' 

It’s a right wing culture war ‘truth’ that what you have just stated is a progressive ‘truth’. 

[kallend 1,621]

7 hours ago, metalslug said:

Uh, no. "When People Criticize Me, They Are Really Criticizing Science, Because I Represent Science". You realize he actually said this, right? ..as though he's the single source of all truth on the subject. Although I myself regarded much of Fauci's (Covid) advice as plausible my point here is not to re-debate Covid specifically; for anyone to proclaim omniscience of any field on which there is significant contradictory evidence and opposing opinion from credentialed peers, is an unfortunate characteristic of lefty dogma. To (absurdly) parody that Reps 'don't know what science is' when I'm quite certain anyone here could easily name several credentialed conservative scientists. It's about as 'funny' and as accurate as a meme that portrays all progressives as sexual deviants.

Fauci is a scientist.  I am a scientist.

It is pretty clear that you aren't, and don't actually have a clue.

[wmw999 2,116]

3 hours ago, metalslug said:

With reference to the OP; not long ago some progressive 'truths' included; 'The Hunter laptop is a Russian fabrication' and 'Unvaccinated people are more contagious than vaccinated people and should be ostracized'.  Fox News seems to be a source of 'truth' as good as any from the left spectrum. 

Well, unvaccinated people are more likely to catch COVID, so there is that. Also, they are more likely to be COVID deniers, who therefore might just keep on with their business until they can't. That doesn't mean it's a statistically significant number of people, just that it's more likely.

And as far as the Biden laptop, even the Post's own forensic experts said that the laptop was a real horror to analyze forensically, with material written and erased over the last 3 years (after it was supposedly dropped off). And that the most "damning" folders ("salacious pics package" and "Biden Burisma" among others) were created in September 2020, well after the laptop was supposedly dropped off. Does that mean Hunter isn't an embarrassement? Nope, he pretty much is, as are many addicts.

Wendy P.

[metalslug 31]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

You said that Fauci was claiming to be omniscient because he said he represented science. You can’t possibly have forgotten that already, so why be dishonest?

I said that Fauci was claiming omniscience because he said "When people criticize me, they are really criticizing science.".  You can't possibly have forgotten that already, so why be dishonest?

1 hour ago, kallend said:

It is pretty clear that you aren't, and don't actually have a clue.

If a fallacy is 'pretty clear' to you, that confirms your own flawed perceptions.

[metalslug 31]

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Well, unvaccinated people are more likely to catch COVID, so there is that.

Factually untrue, and perhaps obtained from your preferred source of truth? The vaccine reduces the severity of illness and symptoms, there is zero evidence that it reduces a person's chance of testing positive (i.e. 'catching' it). I'm all for it of course, I've had 4 jabs so far.

[jakee 1,254]

25 minutes ago, metalslug said:

I said that Fauci was claiming omniscience because he said "When people criticize me, they are really criticizing science.".  You can't possibly have forgotten that already, so why be dishonest?

So why did you also quote him saying “because I represent science” when you had no problem with him saying that? Because if you have no problem with him saying that, it’s the bit that exactly explains why you are completely and totally wrong about his meaning. 

You were awake during covid, right? You did see the enormous amount of insane and unjustified criticism he got from elected Republican Party representatives and right wing followers, right? You do accept that mental right wing anti-Fauci conspiracy theories are a real thing that  really happened and got/still have a huge amount of traction online and among right wing politicians, journalists and personalities, right? That’s what he’s talking about. 
 

So again, it’s incredibly dishonest of you to suggest one line in an interview where he spends quite a bit of time discussing the mistakes that were made at all levels of the US Covid response including things he wishes he’d realised earlier means he thinks he’s omnipotent. Because it cannot possibly be what you really think.

[jakee 1,254]

6 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Factually untrue, and perhaps obtained from your preferred source of truth? The vaccine reduces the severity of illness and symptoms, there is zero evidence that it reduces a person's chance of testing positive (i.e. 'catching' it). I'm all for it of course, I've had 4 jabs so far.

Why is it that whenever a right winger says ‘what’s your source?’ The answer is always ‘same as your source, you just haven’t read it properly’?

 

Executive Summary

Key findings and considerations for this brief are as follows:

Available evidence shows that fully vaccinated individuals and those previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 each have a low risk of subsequent infection for at least 6 months.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

22 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Factually untrue, and perhaps obtained from your preferred source of truth? The vaccine reduces the severity of illness and symptoms, there is zero evidence that it reduces a person's chance of testing positive (i.e. 'catching' it). I'm all for it of course, I've had 4 jabs so far.

What are you talking about?

The mRNA vax was over 90% effective at preventing infection with the original virus. The effectiveness diminished with the later variants. 

That's why they called infections of vaccinated people 'breakthrough' infections.

From a deeper dig in the CDC link you posted:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/why-measure-effectiveness/breakthrough-cases.html

[metalslug 31]

20 minutes ago, jakee said:

You did see the enormous amount of insane and unjustified criticism he got from elected Republican Party representatives and right wing followers, right? 

I also saw the criticisms of him from other scientists including, but not limited to, many signatories of the Barrington Declaration.

21 minutes ago, jakee said:

So again, it’s incredibly dishonest of you to suggest one line in an interview where he spends quite a bit of time discussing the mistakes that were made at all levels of the US Covid response including things he wishes he’d realised earlier means he thinks he’s omnipotent. Because it cannot possibly be what you really think.

Err... no, that's not what I think. Omnipotent?  Really? You're there now?

[metalslug 31]

53 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Factually untrue, and perhaps obtained from your preferred source of truth? The vaccine reduces the severity of illness and symptoms, there is zero evidence that it reduces a person's chance of testing positive (i.e. 'catching' it). I'm all for it of course, I've had 4 jabs so far.

Fair enough. I'll retract this. Beyond anecdotal evidence, I'm unable to find the citation that sufficiently discounts the vaccine efficacy WRT present day chance of infection. The two dated links provided by others should therefore stand, for now.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

3 hours ago, jakee said:

You can’t possibly have forgotten that already, so why be dishonest?

This is where our techniques for understanding this sort of thing diverge: I absolutely believe they forget what they say and do so almost immediately. For the most part it's all learning that just lays on the surface until blown away. That said, I do enjoy your capacity to follow flawed thinking.

[ryoder 1,381]

4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

This is where our techniques for understanding this sort of thing diverge: I absolutely believe they forget what they say and do so almost immediately. For the most part it's all learning that just lays on the surface until blown away. That said, I do enjoy your capacity to follow flawed thinking.

Ah, so we should sympathize with these sufferers of anterograde amnesia.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

9 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Ah, so we should sympathize with these sufferers of anterograde amnesia.

Nah, feeling sorry for them is already too much of a burden.

[jakee 1,254]

2 hours ago, metalslug said:

I also saw the criticisms of him from other scientists including, but not limited to, many signatories of the Barrington Declaration.

And yet you clearly didn’t see the interview  from which you’re quoting, because as I keep saying and you keep dodging, they very very obviously weren’t talking about anything like that.

(And come on, pushing herd immunity with everything we know at this point? Dude.)

2 hours ago, metalslug said:

Err... no, that's not what I think. Omnipotent?  Really? You're there now?

So again, it’s incredibly dishonest of you to suggest one line in an interview where he spends quite a bit of time discussing the mistakes that were made at all levels of the US Covid response including things he wishes he’d realised earlier means he thinks he’s omniscient. Because it cannot possibly be what you really think.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

8 hours ago, metalslug said:

With reference to the OP; not long ago some progressive 'truths' included; 'The Hunter laptop is a Russian fabrication' and 'Unvaccinated people are more contagious than vaccinated people and should be ostracized'.

Bullshit. Even more bullshit as direct quotes. But yeah, bullshit.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

Fair enough. I'll retract this. Beyond anecdotal evidence, I'm unable to find the citation that sufficiently discounts the vaccine efficacy WRT present day chance of infection. The two dated links provided by others should therefore stand, for now.

It’s actually the link you provided, but whatever.

 

You were also explicitly talking about vaccinated contagiousness as something that was a liberal ‘truth’ in the past.

So if it was a liberal ‘truth’ in the past, and you freely admit that it was indeed entirely true in the past… what exactly is your problem anyway?

Edited October 7, 2022 by jakee

[billvon 2,384]

10 hours ago, metalslug said:

He's conflating anti-Fauci people with 'anti-science' people.

No.   He explicitly says that there are anti-science people out there and they BECOME anti-Fauci people because they see him on TV and he is a better (personal) target for them.  He is correct there.

Quote

His belief that those two terms are synonymous is rather the point I'm making.

Since that belief exists in your mind rather than in reality, wouldn't it be simpler to fix your misunderstanding?

Quote

If you're placing a set of subjective internet forum rules and protests about the fairness of them as being analogous to science debates

Sorry you missed the point there.

[billvon 2,384]

9 hours ago, metalslug said:

When one is the Chief Medical Advisor to POTUS and impacting Federal decisions, it's a little more than a hapless or incidental lightning rod.

He's neither hapless nor incidental.  He is the Chief Medical Advisor.  He is ALSO a lightning rod.  (He also did a lot of work on AIDS and wrote several medical textbooks.)

Quote

Fox News seems to be a source of 'truth' as good as any from the left spectrum. 

Now that you've retracted those claims, it seems like perhaps FOX is still far worse.