[cotelletta]

Just because Wikipedia says it, doesn't mean it's widely known or accurate. Labeling things as denialism is itself a common trick in misinformation. It flattens whatever the original argument was.

There is a common conflation today where criticism of X policy is confused with being anti-X.

The medical censorship is getting so bad that organizations like this now seem pretty useful and on point. I don't need to agree with all their claims to have common ground with them.

Certainly more than the people who see covid as an endless license to control what others are allowed to read or hear.

[etchalon]

This organization is not useful.

[cotelletta]

In a pandemic, we make weird friends. I much prefer some pro conservative anti abortion org asking for less censorship than a dozen woke newspapers and rumor mills calling me a fascist or antivaxxer because I don't treat science as an unquestionable holy cow. Or while propping up corrupt politicians because they're on the same team.

I don't need to agree with someone 100% in order to agree that doing X will make the world more like what i want it to be like.

In this case, if this org is wrong, the answer is counterspeech based on facts, not shooing people away from afar without a chance to listen. Because that is the tic of the authoritarian who is intellectually bankrupt.

[etchalon]

There are intellectually honest organizations and groups that are asking questions and challenging censorship without being the garbage pile of ideologically-driven pseudoscience that AAPS advocates.

Make better friends.