hypochondriac

Has he played this season do we know?

Pathetic non answer that doesn't answer the qiestion. You've seemingly accepted that now it is a reasonable thing to discuss because we've had what you describe as legitimate reports in 2023. Presumably before 2023 it is not a reasonable thing to discuss by your logic. People were being banned and censored for merely discussing the possibility of a lab leak prior to 2023. In your view this is legitimate yes?

So in your mind it's now reasonable to discuss the possibility of a lab leak because the FBI have said it is the most likely scenario? So anyone expressing that view prior to 2023 should have been censored or banned from social media? Yes?

Could do this all day really but the fact remains it is a viable and plausible possibility whether you believe it definitely was or that we aren't certain either way. I don't think that discussing that should have been censored.

The fact remains it's a completely plausible theory supported by the FBI and people were censored from discussing it at the time. They should not have been. It doesn't invalidate the wider point.

Reports have concluded that it is the most likely outcome (and clearly it is). Of course there's no direct evidence because it's not In the CCP's interest for there to be any. They were most likely doing gain of function research and it accidentally got released. That's not the same as Smallpox leaking because Smallpox is an existing virus. This clip from that well known far right conspiracy theorist Jon Stewart is decent: https://youtu.be/sSfejgwbDQ8

You're focusing on one example and it really is about the wider point as I said about censorship and who decides what truth is but clearly at the time people were being censored and prevented from even discussing the possibility of the theory (people were getting banned from social media platforms and YouTube in particular for simply mentioning the lab leak theory or the fact that there's a novel coronavirus lab in the same place where a novel coronavirus showed up). It was dismissed as a conspiracy theory and is now widely viewed as the most likely occurance. There's still no hard evidence though so by your logic we should be censored from discussing it. The wider point stands, there are of course other occurances where people have been censored or prevented from speaking because someone has decided they don't like their speech or because they have decided that they are the arbitors of what is true and untrue and I don't think it's right to give politicians or those in authority that power.

I'm not sure I mentioned anything about the vaccine. I've already said I support vaccines and disagree with the narrative that they are harmful.

Are you claiming that Covid did not originate from a Wuhan lab leak?

That was partly my point but like I said, that one example isn't relevant to the broader point about censorship.

I don't think the individual case is particularly relevant to the broader point anyway. Who is providing the fact checking in your scenario? Who decides what is evidence based? Is speculation never allowed prior to something becoming fact checked and evidence based?

There was a level of evidence yes but less than desirable because the Chinese didn't want to release any for obvious reasons.

I didn't say a complete block on censorship, I said I prefer a state of affairs where there is less censorship than more. If we are looking at censorship then I certainly don't want the government deciding what the truth is and what is bullshit. At the time it was a disgrace that legitimate narratives about China developing Covid were suppressed as one example under the mistaken belief that it was fake news. Look at the lengths that people have had to go to before the government would refer to Pakistani rape gangs and acknowledge a problem. Those are just two relatively minor recent examples.

I think it's a combination of his own epiphany that he's been having for a few years now and the fact that Trump would probsbly forced him to do much of this stuff anyway and he doesn't want a fight about it. Either way it's great news, dei initiatives are cancerous and need removing and I'd far rather we had less censorship online than more so it's a good direction of travel.

Trying to stretch a metaphor about trusting authority into the middle ages when authorities were busy throwing leeches on people and boring holes in skulls is about the stupidest thing I've ever seen on here. If anything that suggests the total opposite and that we very much shouldn't be listening to what those in power tell us to do.

It's not a wildly unlikely claim is it, given we have documented evidence of authorities demanding that of twitter pre Musk. I also don't see why he'd lie about something that could be so easily disproven.

You fucking idiot.

Good. Dumping dei and censorship is not perfect but it's better than the alternative.

Two things can be true. Clearly authorities meddled to suppress many things outside of the narrative they wanted regarding the vaccine. At the same time, the vaccine is as safe as other vaccines and people who bash vaccines are hard of thinking.

Interesting Streeting referring to Pakistani rape gangs. That's a welcome change that wouldn't have happened a few months ago. One step closer to admitting they are actually a problem.

I always found him equally excoriating to both sides during his interviews. He's been heavily critical and no fan of the tories for years. I don't see what about his criticism were inaccurate? Likewise, I often disagree with you but appreciate you don't just start shouting insults and respect your point of view.

Just call it something else then. City of culture makes it sound like there's something culturally significant about these shitholes.

Like I said, you'd dismiss it based on who it is rather than what it says. The photo is there because how she looked and acted in the house was in the article.

An excellent article that those inclined to do so will ignore because they don't like Andrew Neil. He's 100% right though, Labour and their actions have made the economy significantly worse.

Happy to say I haven't been for many years. Why do they always encourage ridicule by giving these things to the worst places in the country? Wasn't Portsmouth up for it at some point?