There’s a correlation between wearing socks and athlete’s foot. Socks cause athletes foot, clearly, and so we shouldn’t wear socks when wearing shoes.
Amen, brother! I have long freed my feet from the prison that is the sock!
actually yes https://lunasandals.com/products/mono-winged-edition
You wear socks…. With…. Sandals?!?!?
E’eryone, git your pitchforks!! They’re coming to force you to wear SOCKS WITH SANDALS!!!
socks with sandals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7En0z2A38c
Im almost positive that Andrew Wakefield has caused more harm to modern medicine than any other person in the last 200 years.
His human megaphone, Jenny McCarthy, isn’t much better. No one heard of him before she advocated for his findings to be mainstream.
Don’t forget Oprah who amplified the idea more than they ever could have done on their own
Can we convince people that Andrew Wakefield, Jenny McCarthy and RFK, Jr. cause autism?
(I don’t believe there’s anything actually wrong with being autistic, I have multiple autistic people in my family. I just think that would be amusing.)
(I don’t believe there’s anything actually wrong with being autistic, I have multiple autistic people in my family. I just think that would be amusing.)
there’s probably a less tenuous correlation there, though. just saying. Granted, correlation is not causation, but, eh… yeah.
Steps:
- be (usually born) rich
- have an agenda
- use your wealth to accomplish it
- lie, cheat, steal, do whatever you have to in order to “win”
Did I leave anything out? :-P
You forgot step 5: once you have won, change the rules so nobody else can play anymore
Can we convince people that Andrew Wakefield, Jenny McCarthy and RFK, Jr. cause autism?
Not autism. They cause death.
For the idiots who avoid vaccinating their kids because “it causes autism,” death is preferable. Consider that they would rather take that risk than be put in a situation of having to parent a neuroatypical child.
This is what always got to me the most. Even if vaccines caused autism, wouldn’t that be preferable to your kid dying? Like, what the fuck is wrong with these people.
duh…they cause magnetism not autism. /s
It’s because there is no punishment for spreading false information. These cunt celebrities and politicians spread their fucking lies and if they are found out, they make an empty apology that reaches 1% of the people that they lied to, and it’s all forgive and forget. Fuck all of that. Every anti-vax, anti-mask, anti-education cunt out there needs to be strung up from the societal rafters. They have to be made an example of. At the bare minimum they should be doing tours helping to correct the lies they have spread, spending time on social media and running commercials like fucking community service hours. There has to be a punishment for this shit.
I’m curious as to how that law would be written and what it would look like in practice.
Ideally, you wouldn’t have to write a law for it, and the people would be held accountable by others. That’s a BIG wish, though, and I’m a realist–it’ll never happen. Instead, if it were written into law, it would have to be done the same ways that libel and slander laws are written, and there would have to be a criminal trial for it. I understand that up front that seems like a lot of extra work for the courts, but if the punishments were severe enough, then hopefully we would see an outright reduction on it.
Some precedent for it would be libel laws as previously stated, false advertising laws, and public health laws like what Germany has instituted (NetzDG) that required social media to remove false health information within 24 hours.
And just to make it clear, I don’t want to infringe on anyone’s right to free speech, but just like libel and slander laws, when that free speech damages others, then it has to be curbed. The scientific evidence is there for things like the mask mandate and the efficacy of vaccines, we just have to prove it in court and punish those who are guilty of spreading that false information.
I’m all in favour of this, and I try to do keep people accountable for what they say, even though I often end up getting insults for it. But to judge in court someone for spreading lies you would need to know the objective truth, and setting truth into stone would compromise science’a ability to propose radical new ideas.
I think there are ways to do this without compromising science, though. But they are all susceptible to the 50% attack, made famous by cryptocurrencies. If you rely on a community to certify what truth is, you are exposed to a potential attack where a powerful enemy buys more than 50% of the network to make them say their lie is true and the actual truth is a lie. I don’t have a solution for that yet.