5 Filters

This seems like a good summary of the denialist case

Covid
#28

No. As far as I’m aware, no individuals have been attacked here, including me. (Praise be.)

As I tried to explain (obviously not successfully), I also felt attacked in TLN, even though (with only one exception, viz., Mary, and then a bunch of others when she stormed off) no-one had it in for me personally there. I tend to identify with ideas, and a lot of ideas are given a hard time in TLN. It’s hard to explain! Write me off as paranoid, if it’ll save time. :slight_smile:

I don’t want to go on too long (it’s now past bedtime, once again), but I think you surely must understand that in TLN, it wasn’t a group of individuals against another group of individuals, but a collective process.

It’s very hard to get this sort of point across; indeed it was at just such a point as this that I got suddenly banned from TLN.

(Only Everyman ever properly addressed the concept of collective processes in a small online group - he foresaw the kind of difficulties that emerged.)

I would alter your wording to something like: “a dynamic where dissent is bashed”. The individual personae of the dissenters and the bashers periodically vary (naming no names - my tactlessness has its limits!), but the dynamic* persists.

* [Not a word I much like - was it introduced by Freud?]

This could get too complicated, and I’m happy to let it drop. (Not my original point about the need for a pair of vague terms, though - I’m stubborn about that.) The “dynamic” here is nowhere near as unhealthy as it was (and still is) in TLN.

I’m hope I’m not being too tactless in mentioning TLN several times explicitly like this. (It’s what they get for banning me in such an ad hoc way, for so little reason!) Or, tactless in drawing attention to something that seems a little bit squiffy in our own “dynamic”, here at 5F. I think I’m acting a bit like a canary in a coal-mine - but it may all be in my own mind, and others may have other ideas of what I’m acting like. :slight_smile:

Heed Everyman’s warnings about internal group processes! One can’t afford to ignore them - and that’s precisely for the sake of the future survival of evidence and argument. Ignoring such things is a form of “denialism”! :slight_smile:

Sorry if I’m being preachy.

Wayyy past bedtime, again.

That’s probably a good pattern to follow. That is, split off new threads to deal with particular points in the long video and (later) PDF document that I referred to in the OP, because they cover a lot of ground. Also, this thread seems to have become the de facto place for discussing the (surprisingly deep) ramifications and connotations of terminology.

#29

The term denialists came over here from the TLN/JH post which was certainly an attack on people with certain viewpoints. That’s why we were discussing the term, and the only reason I mentioned TLN. But since you mention it, yes you were banned there after disagreeing with Dan while being attacked as you described. If I remember correctly there was clearly a misunderstanding which he refused to correct after it was pointed out.

" As far as I’m aware, no individuals have been attacked here, including me. (Praise be.)"

I think no-one was gaslit here either. Other than that I think I’ll leave it there too :slight_smile:

For those who’ve just joined the programme, I think the original thread continues under " No excess mortality - really? " :slight_smile:

#30

A thread like this is totally chilling.

Wake up.

The police state is being rolled out right in front of your eyes.

For feck’s sake grow a pair.

#31

Seems we spoke too soon - please check the guidelines on civilized discussion Rob
https://forum.5filters.info/t/faq-guidelines/5

#32

And with regard to Dr Dan on another board, just about the entire so-called ‘alternate media’ has been infiltrated. You can literally count on the fingers of one hand those who still remain genuine (and that’s out of the entire English language internet, which is saying something).

People don’t often believe me when I say this.

Take a look at boards like here.

#34

Yup, ban, ban, ban, the usual crap for ‘not obeying the rules’.

Human society is being decimated on a global level.

Only a complete lunatic would deny this…

There’s been nothing before like this in history (really, there hasn’t).

So let’s all pretend that we’re at a WA meeting in Basingstoke.

#35

lol - nicely put :grin:

No need for any ban mate. There’s no one on this site that would disagree with what you just wrote (probably). But the only way this site will remain a place where people come to discuss stuff is if the basics are done right from the beginning.

Take care

PS - just pinged you a PM.

#36

Obvious question (to your PM): why are you so afraid of people saying what they think?

I’d advise you to go back to that WA meeting in Basingstoke, because you might not like what’s coming.

#37

Hi @RobG

There’s no issue here with people saying what they think, as long as they are able to do so in ways that don’t attack other posters on this board. Basic civility is not such a large ask.

Yeah - you’re right about that. I don’t like what’s coming. I don’t like it at all…

'Night

#39

Not wishing to fall foul of the mods, I entirely agree with Rob.

As for continuing the original thread “No excess mortality - really”, I thought that had been so well explained by the Irish Youtuber (whose name I can’t remember), and posted here, that I can’t see any point in continuing this thread unless one has contradictory arguments.

Having finally watched the original video, I think it is the responsibility of anyone who still accepts the “case” numbers, or even that there is no political agenda here, to respond to what essentially is evidence, presented by lawyers, backed up by expert testimony.

@admin I just posted a new thread about the PCR test. Perhaps merge it with this one.

#40

There is indeed broad agreement here about the scam that’s being driven into the world on the back of this dubious pathogen. No need for us to start getting snarly angry - or paranoid - about it. As a matter of fact, I’d say that staying restrained and civil in language is probably as crucial a matter as anything, simply in order to go on having constructive explorations of what’s happening, rather than letting ego circuses predominate; as we’ve watched happen with the Hulk. To that end, we have to stay alert and pro-active against any straying in of personalities and adhom. We need tactful admin to keep this situation upright; and we seem to be getting that. Still important to find time to get a general agreement on how exactly the moderation is done, and what the - agreed - rules are.

Right! Feeling damn-near knackered this AM after a disturbed night. BUT - I have just had a phone call saying that our tree-defenders’ camp only has a skeletal presence of bodies just now. So - on me bleedin’ bike, pronto! Back this evening if still on my effing feet! :smile:

#41

Morning @PatB

No need to worry that you might fall foul of the mods (three-headed Cerberus that we are) for agreeing with a poster. So far, the only hard and fast rule on this site is that posts should not attack other posters. Flame wars are not constructive, and we have all witnessed what happens when they spin out of control. Let’s try to avoid that here.

As we see it, you’ve been exemplary in strongly and cogently arguing for your point of view (as indeed you are doing in this post) and whilst being able to avoid hurling insults at other posters.

@RobG could certainly learn something from you.

Regards
Cerberus AKA the mods.

#42

Hi all,

We just want to suggest that discussion about some of the dynamics that might appear on this board, including possible groupthink etc. gets moved to the thread on board culture and censorship. We do consider it to be a very important topic, and are interested in seeing the discussion evolve.

That way, those of us who are interested in pursuing this topic can do so, and those who want to ignore that and focus on other issues are free to do so.

Regards
mods

#43

Hi PatB

Ivor Cummings (is that who you mean?) didn’t say that there was zero excess mortality. He took the mortality numbers (as I remember) at face value, and then went on to say that it was following a classic epidemic curve, and it was over now. That’s quite a separate issue than saying there just weren’t any excess deaths, as Dr. Fuellmich seems to be saying.

Zero excess deaths seems like fantasy to me… but i’m happy to proven wrong if the evidence comes to light. Let’s carry that discussion over to the excess deaths thread if some evidence does turn up.

More generally, with regard to your points about case numbers and the underlying political agenda, we probably agree on most of that.

Cheers
PP

#44

“Not wishing to fall foul of the mods, I entirely agree with Rob.”

Whether it troubles the moderators or not, why is it chilling. Some might say that believing you can judge other people’s priorities on the basis of some forum chat that you don’t like is problematic, as is pulling out the ‘police state’ as a kybosh in lieu of discussion. If the police state is going to arise during a bit of chat, then the ‘chilling’ state is already here - it’s just a non sequitur surely.

#45

@Evvy_dense Forgive me for being a little thick, but I’m not sure what you are saying. So what I’ll do is clarify my comments.

I interpreted @RobG’s comment like this. There has been a lot of discussion in a thread about Corona virus “denialists”, discussing one person’s feelings of being “gaslighted”. I am not dismissing the validity of those feelings at all. However, unless the “gaslighter(s)” can be identified, the topic of the thread has been completely derailed. The whole issue of Corona virus has been used to enforce unprecedented police and state powers and control populations. Where ever one stands on the Corona debate, this issue must rate as the one that warrants urgent and rigorous debate. I was agreeing with Rob that sidelining an issue which is and will continue to affect the lives of probably the entire world population, for the sake of one individual is frightening.

#46

It was Ivor Cummings and thanks for the reminder. As I recall, he said total deaths were higher than normal, however, the previous year was lower than normal. Cummings gave a figure (based on countries totalling 360 million), of 140,000 deaths in 2018. The same figure for 2020 was 180,000 and “… not much difference”. However, he also pointed out that 2019 had a “very soft” flu season, meaning less deaths than normal, leaving many more old and vulnerable people susceptible in 2020.

He also went on to say that 2020 was better than the year 2000. As an aside, that was the year planes would be falling from the sky because of the date! Sadly what he didn’t say was if we averaged 2019 and 2020, what the figure would have been. From my reading of the graphs, there would have been little if any discernable difference between the average and 2018. In fact completely in line with the previous 5 years.

1 Like
Excess deaths revisited - Covid has killed a lot of people
#47

Ok, you’ve given me loads to think about there. I’ll go and do that :thinking:

I’ll see if I can dig out the data, and maybe even generate these averages. Could be very interesting.

Cheers
PP

#48

Thanks for the response PatB. I meant the police state isn’t going to arise because two people chat for a day on a forum.
Is someone telling people to “grow a pair” because they find their conversation “chilling” not just elevating their own feelings? The thread of the Fuellmich case wasn’t derailed, it continued - it was the discussion you and RobG complain about that was derailed by the insults.
Perhaps you missed the deleted part of the post but claiming urgency on a discussion board isn’t a great excuse for aggression towards each other, there’s plenty of room for everyone to discuss what they want to and we’re hoping to keep discussions less personal. Cheers

#49

You’re right. I did miss it. And we agree on this