|
He also said "We use the POWER that we have to limit the spread of that misinformation." These are extremely hostile and dangerous words from a US Official, no? Who are you to determine what are/are not lies and what is/isn't truth? You are obviously following one narrative, but is there not another or other narratives? Is everyone that goes against the "mainstream narrative" automatically wrong, even if there have been world renowned medical experts and other science stating other facts that have been completely de-platformed by these "mainstream media outlets". Do you think it's healthy that the "mainstream media" is owned by a few powerful funds and small groups of people comprised of board members of the very same medical and pharmaceutical companies? And those very same Super-PACS fund the politicians that get there? There is much cross-over, and lots of potential for conflicts of interests, no? To put your complete trust in one opinion, group, party or sources doesn't seem so healthy or sane to me - but to each their own. You will not tell me what is misinformation or not. I prefer to hear from all experts of all sides myself. Personally, I'm a free thinker - but if you prefer to be spoon-fed what to and what not to think, this is your choice. I have read history, I'm aware of the former Communist, Nazi, Authoritarian and Dictatorship regimes - all which started with the control of the media, suppression of free thinkers, speech, intellectuals and controlling ONE NARRATIVE and this is exactly how things start - and how they end or ended...well, wars (Civil and globally) and millions of deaths. Power corrupts, just like water is wet. |
From what I can tell, your fundamental point is that truth is subjective, and governments that censor trivial things slide down a slippery slope to totalitarianism, so we should avoid that by allowing unrestricted free speech, which will protect us if the government turns out to be technically wrong. There's another point about the media but it is fairly close to conspiracy theory (for example, top pharma company boards don't overlap with mainstream media).
Another issue is that some sides don't have experts. For example, the pro-ivermectin side doesn't have experts. It has a small number of confused doctors and a large number of ignorant people, and a teeny-tiny number of people who have the ability to run a large-scale controlled clinical trial, but aren't getting involved.
Let's bring it down to a simple situation. The nation faces an existential risk. scientists convince the government they understand the cause and have a solution that will eliminate the risk. the process will involve temporary suspension of civil liberties that can be suspended when the risk is gone. However, Joe Rogan has an expert on his show that says the scientists are wrong.
At that point, I literally just trust that I made the right decision electing a person who will make the right decision (in the case of an existential threat, it's OK to suspend civil liberties temporarily). What do you do? Listen to the expert as the world dies?