Sorry, can’t find any better sources for this.

The animator then asked Maher what the “downside” of “getting a vaccine” was, which caused the comedian to go on an anti-vax tirade.

“The fact that you the fact that you don’t even have a clue what’s the cost of getting a vaccine that you don’t know the answer to that. You completely want to shut your eyes to the fact that there are repercussions to all medical interventions, including a vaccine, all vaccines,” he ranted. “They come, they say side effects, just like every medication does. You can see it in the literature. They can’t write it on their back on the vaccine. So you have to dig them. And of course, there is a vaccine court because so many people have been injured.”

  • xor@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    10 months ago

    i went ahead and listened to that “antivax rant” and really it wasn’t against the vaccine at all, he was against the censorship of discussion about it and policies around it.

    such as, the lab leak hypothesis… once completely censored as “misinformation”, but now a viable theory.

    or how previous covid infections don’t count as a vaccination, although the immunity ends up the same.

    a lot of his ideas on it are wrong, or misinformed, but the fact that we weren’t allowed to talk about it was fucked up… and i think it was a lot of the reason antivax shit got so big… being completely censored by bots on every forum makes a lot of people paranoid.

    i do also remember being shouted down in every forum by a mob of anti-vax russian sock puppets, so it wasn’t for no reason… but still, being able talk about things is crucial for a democracy to function.

    • thalience@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      such as, the lab leak hypothesis… once completely censored as “misinformation”, but now a viable theory

      It was never completely censored. Evidenced by the fact that you, me, and everyone else heard about it.

      People got called names for promoting it without good evidence. People also got called names for pointing out that the evidence was super weak. Y’know, what passes for “debate” these days.

      Stop lying

      • xor@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        10 months ago

        omg, you’re soooooo right!
        it wasn’t completely, 100% censored, because ive heard of it! i must by lying!!!
        your evidence is so solid! so much better than what passes for debates, is you completely proving that im lying.

        go ahead and pretend like you haven’t seen comments, videos and posts removed for “misinformation”

        liar

          • PopcornTin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            The White House press secretary has said they worked with tech companies to ban misinformation. The Twitter Files showed many government agencies giving them guidance to for the rules around covid misinformation, then giving lists of tweets to take action on for breaking said terms and conditions. Like or not what goofy things people thought about covid, the government telling them to shut down these posts is clearly against the first amendment.

            • thalience@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              The actual information released in “the Twitter files” showed the opposite of what musky’s pet propagandists said it did.

              You seem to actually admit that what happened was identifying posts that violated the terms and conditions of private companies. No demands or threats were issued.Does the government have no right to speak truth?

              If a government agency notices a lethal hazard in your town that doesn’t technically violate the law, should they be prohibited from telling you and your neighbors about the danger?

          • xor@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            10 months ago

            things change over time.
            for SOME TIME, it was treated as laughable misinformation, and directly censored… later it wasn’t. (check out coverage on Jon Stewart when he talked about it when you weren’t supposed to)
            at a LATER TIME it was no longer bad to talk about it.
            sorry you have no idea what’s being discussed here.

            im sorry if you really think that there was no censorship involving covid discussions online.
            and i dont really care how silly you are.

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              They weren’t censored very well, clearly. And considering a lot of COVID misinformation was telling you to inject horse dewormer instead of getting a vaccine, I wish it was censored better. In a public health emergency, I’m pretty okay with requiring statements to be scientifically and medically sound.

              Second, it was misinformation at the time. Researchers and the general scientifically community believed the evidence pointed to other theories. It wasn’t until later when we had more evidence that it emerged as a serious possibility.

              That’s how science works. Unless an idea is supported by clear and sound evidence, it’s untrue. The lab leak theory can be misinformation at one point in time and viable at another point in time – if I predicted heavy snowfall on a 74 degree day in June, it would very obviously be wrong. If I predict it for a 20 degree day in December however, it’s actually plausible. It blows my mind that this is a novel concept for some people.

              • xor@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                10 months ago

                Second, it was misinformation at the time.

                what??? no it wasn’t. it was a plausible hypothesis.

                That’s how science works.

                that is not how science works. science works by a free exchange of ideas

                Unless an idea is supported by clear and sound evidence, it’s untrue.

                no. something can be completely true but not at all supported by evidence. You are confusing “truth” with “a broader scientific belief”

                The lab leak theory can be misinformation at one point in time and viable at another point in time –

                that doesn’t make sense, and isn’t what “misinformation” even means.

                if I predicted heavy snowfall on a 74 degree day in June, it would very obviously be wrong. If I predict it for a 20 degree day in December however, it’s actually plausible.

                well that’s the stupidest analogy i’ve ever read… the “date” and “temperature” of the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis didn’t change.

                It blows my mind that this is a novel concept for some people.

                it blows my mind that you’re patting yourself on the back for such utter drivel

                • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  You’re assuming it’s true and working backwards from there.

                  Science is not just a free exchange of ideas. It gives no quarter to unfounded ideas and pseudoscience. You’re welcome to propose ideas, but the scientific community can and will tear them apart unless there’s a strong basis.

                  If there is evidence, it must in general point to the truth.

                  • xor@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    You’re assuming it’s true and working backwards from there.

                    you’re talking out of your ass, and im done talking to you

    • PopcornTin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Much like this post’s OP, couldn’t find any better sources? How about the actual interview in YouTube? Google the names of the two guys, that’s all it takes. But no, let’s all just rant about how bad anti vax people are, rather than argue whatever points they make. This is such an extreme echo chamber.

      For me, it was most revealing when the EU parliament got the pharmaceutical execs to admit they did not track basic stats of the vaccine. Does it prevent infection completely? If not, does it stop retransmission? Does it minimize the severity (no reaction, slight cold, hospitalized, death)? Nope, we’re not tracking that.

      • xor@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        well that’s crazy…
        and got the vax earlier than most (got sorta a standby appointment for when higher risk people didn’t show up)… and i got a booster…
        i’m a very big fan of vaccines…
        i’m still not a fan of the way the covid vaccine discussions were censored…

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      being able talk about things is crucial for a democracy to function.

      This is a thing that really bothers me these days, has me worried.

      There’s such an emphasis on “killing the messenger” (vs the message) and shutting down discussion, that we haven’t seen in previous ages.

      I don’t know why it’s a new thing, maybe it’s just astroturfers/bots, otherwise it’s the newer generation being okay with censoring others, and that’s a bad thing (censoring others).

      • xor@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        it’s been pretty crazy…
        with covid we had people dying from dumb information, and russia running huge disinfo campaigns online… so i did understand cracking down on it… but just completely stifling all questioning… at all… was a huge, and terrifying, overreaction.

        i got banned from reddit for arguing in worldnews against obvious israeli disinformation… so that’s fun

        one main troll tactic now is to just fuck with people until you get them aggravated enough to cuss or something, then report them…
        (just got a warning on here, actually… i can say any horrible, literally destructive thing i want… but if i cuss at someone or call them a name, well THEN im uncivil

      • Jax@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s what happens when you’re trained to recognize buzz words as a strategy for defending yourself against idealogies you disagree with. Not defending yourself because you’re right, but because it keeps you from being exposed too much to what the other thinks. It’s easier to paint things “good, bad”, file them away and go on with your day.

        It isn’t that they think censorship is good, it’s that they’re trained to censor themselves. This is just late stage social media brainrot taking full effect, among other things.