Controversial - the place to discuss controversial topics

434 readers

1 users here now

Controversial - the community to discuss controversial topics.

Challenge others opinions and be challenged on your own.

This is not a safe space nor an echo-chamber, you come here to discuss in a civilized way, no flaming, no insults!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, "trust me bro" is not a valid argument.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Hastur

Calls for defederation - Is the idea of the open marketplace of ideas outdated? (self.controversial)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Hastur to c/controversial

143 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Lately I see a lot of calls do have specific instances defederated for a particular subset of reasons:

Don't like their content
Dont like their political leaning
Dont like their free speech approach
General feeling of being offended
I want a safe space!
This instance if hurting vulnerable people

I personally find each and every one of these arguments invalid. Everybody has the right to live in an echo chamber, but mandating it for everyone else is something that goes a bit too far.

Has humanity really developed into a situation where words and thoughts are more hurtful than sticks and stones?

Edit: Original context https://slrpnk.net/post/554148

Controversial topic, feel free to discuss!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Hastur 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nothing here contradicts what I wrote. Can you please quote my post and tell me what exactly is wrong? Please see how mRNA works and then look at my postz if you find anything wrong with it and evidence where I was wrong, I'm happy to correct.

Right now you're parrotting the CDC website which doesn't contradict me in the slightest.

Here look at this first https://youtu.be/TbaCxIJ_VP4

[–] Oni_eyes 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you think that doesn't contradict your vaccines= gene therapy point, you need to recheck the definition of gene therapy.

It modifies the genetic structure in the HOST through one of a few methods, none of which are : provide modified RNA genetic material to produce a specific compound, unless said modified RNA also introduces desired genes into the host cells.

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellular-gene-therapy-products/what-gene-therapy#:~:text=Gene%20therapy%20is%20a%20technique,healthy%20copy%20of%20the%20gene

Now if you wanted to be obtuse and say that anything that has any sort of genetic material in it designed to interact with the human body, then you could argue that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. By the definition and by method of interaction they are at best adjacent, not gene therapy.

[–] Hastur 0 points 1 year ago

If you think that doesn't contradict your vaccines= gene therapy point, you need to recheck the definition of gene therapy.

You haven't read what I wrote or you haven't understood it. I did not say: It is gene therapy.

I did not say: I think it's gene therapy. I haven't made any statement about my opinion on that matter.

I said: Given the, simplified, explanation of how mRNA vaccines work an argument could be made to call it gene therapy.

I did NOT say that this is my argument. I did NOT say that calling mRNA vaccines gene therapy is right (or wrong, I did NOT make ANY judgment on that matter).

So either you're intentionally misreading my statements or you're not able to understand that even if I don't agree with an opinion I might be able to follow it's inherent logic which is what I did.

In any case I don't see value in further engaging on that topic with you.