Yes, but this time it would have a "special" meaning.

Phew I thought I was going crazy.

You're posting in atf, so the jury's not out on that just yet.

There are no posters in this thread Sammy couldn't knock out with a single punch!

Solid conspiracy theory.

Seems about as likely as the earth being flat.

Masks were a thing way before COVID19. You ever get the FLU? Before it was in the news that we should be wearing masks, and before COVID19, there were signs in doctors offices saying "If you have FLU like symptoms, please wear a mask." Have you been to a doctor's office before? I remember getting the FLU a couple years back and having a lady scold me for not wearing a mask--Guess what? There was nothing in the news about masks back then.

Who knows, perhaps masks aren't quite as effective as we believe them to be, and certainly I can agree with the sentiment that there's no need to live in a state of overreaction and fear... but with that being said, what makes you think they're not effective to some extent? And how are you being harmed by wearing one? What incentive does the media have to 'brainwash' you into wearing a mask? No, really... think about it... What incentive does the media have in brainwashing you to wear a mask? And I'd like a direct answer to that one.

On the flip side, I can say that the incentive that the media, the government, and the common people have in asking that others wear masks, is to reduce the spread of the virus--which in turn reduces the burden placed on hospitals and doctors offices. Is that effective? Probably to some extent. (I've talked to an epidemiologist who believes that they do help, but that the major factor in reduction is standing at least 6 feet apart). Perhaps we're wrong. But either way you split it, it's most likely an earnest effort to reduce the spread of a virus, rather than a plot to coax conformity.

But you and I both know that you're not changing your mind.

As a general rule of thumb, I think it's bad practice for forums to ban people for believing in conspiracy theories on the basis of "Spreading Disinformation." Or for saying things that could be perceived as controversial. That pre-assumes that people aren't capable of sifting through claims for themselves and eventually coming to reasonable conclusions on their own. Now many people don't come to reasonable conclusions, sure... but can you imagine if strategy forums started banning people who were posting poor strategy because it was disinforming others as to what the 'Correct Strategy' is? You wouldn't get anywhere. There would be less discourse. You'd eventually end up with mono-thought, and new ideas not adhering to the accepted current would be banned/shunned.

Also, when people are banned for 'Spreading Disinformation' or 'Spreading Conspiracy Theories,' it only strengthens their conviction and magnetizes them more to their cause/claim. A more effective way of confronting conspiracy theories is most likely by allowing discourse, and... injecting logic. Injecting logic through questioning.

With that being said, I don't think it's bad practice to ban people for believing in conspiracy theories and 'spreading' them on the basis of relevance. It's a freakin' strategy forum. And if you want to keep the forum on track in it's aim to cultivate strategy talk, then deleting posts on the basis of relevancy, then enforcing that further down the road with ban(s), based on repeated offenses, makes sense to me.

I'm not sure what actually happened, and what the context of the situation/ban was, but those are just my thoughts on banning and general censorship in online forums.

So you registered an account just to make that post. Solid.

lol

I hope you at least got some form of compensation for putting in the effort to sign-up for an account and posting..

I knew COVID existed before I ever bought a mask. Remember what a disaster Italy was at the beginning of this whole thing? That was on all the news channels. And it was worldwide news. It's a worldwide pandemic.

As far as the election and the CNN takes: once again, it's a worldwide Pandemic. It seems sort of USA-centric to say that it's all about the government and media exercising control.

Do the government and media want to exercise control? Sure. Many organizations and groups' motives are aimed at exercising control, whether it be a conscious or unconscious effort. Unfortunately, control and fear are part and parcel with the state of humanity, as of now. Does that mean that you can't separate being fearful and controlled from being cautious and discerning?

Believe it or not it's possible to say "Ok, if there's a small chance that wearing a mask helps, then I'll do it," and simultaneously not buy into the fear and reactionary behavior that is often exhibited on main stream news networks, and by the common popular politician. Just because news networks and governments exhibit fearful actions and rhetoric, doesn't mean that there's a devious strategic plot to get you to be fearful. It's your choice to be fearful or not. And it's also your choice if you want to wear a mask or not. I choose to wear one until there's a vaccine because I'm not losing out on much by helping my neighbor if it does help and prevent me from spreading a virus to someone who may be high risk (should I be unwittingly spreading COVID asymptomatically).

It's possible to talk about these things without falling into the trap of polarization.

As far as the banning for wrong thought part of your response, I already addressed that in my first post.

Why are you putting effort into replying to someone like this?

Because putting people in boxes because of what they believe at any given point in time, only pushes people farther away from each other and strengthens the extremes on either end of an ideological spectrum.

It's a common misstep-belief that engaging each other is dangerous because somehow an opposing ideology may rub off on you.

In fact, I believe it is more dangerous to put someone in a corner and say "Ignore that person because we can't change their mind, and we think that what they believe is crazy."

As far as effort goes, it felt better for me to engage than ignore. I also like writing. Writing can be fun for me. So, it took less effort for me to reply, rather than not reply. Kind of like how skiing takes effort, but not really if you're enjoying yourself.

Is there even one person roaming the planet who actually takes this position? They don't engage because they fear they might accidentally get infected by another ideology?

Yup. Either consciously or unconsciously.

NPC

It happens a lot
A man my dad sees at a breakfast weekly told my dad he wasn't going to heaven because he doesn't accept Jesus as the Christ. He asked my dad why. This went on for weeks. They'd gave Good discussions and my dad would find old testament quotes To prove based on it Jesus could not be the messiah

Eventually the man stopped approaching my dad. My dad then went up to him and asked him a question. The reply was, "I don't want to discuss Bible with you. If I cannot save you it serves no purpose "

That does not sound like an example of what I said.

Obviously "I'm not going to engage with you because it's pointless" is a thing.

That's not what it was

He would try to convince him with quotes age my dad would find quotes that disprove scary he said. The last one really shocked him

I don't think that's why. I thunk because he didn't know so many things contradicted his beliefs and decided not to engage

I wasn't there but my dad took at as the guy got sick of being p riven wrong and Dutch want to hear more things that would contradict his beliefs

There is 0% chance the mask guy would change his mind if given 45,657 scientific papers proving it worked.

That's some brilliant poetry right there.

lol mets, this is so perfect

She told me your helmet needs a helmet to cover the smell of cheese.

I think this is a fairly strong facet of human nature, I definitely feel it at times.