Lately I see a lot of calls do have specific instances defederated for a particular subset of reasons:

  • Don’t like their content
  • Dont like their political leaning
  • Dont like their free speech approach
  • General feeling of being offended
  • I want a safe space!
  • This instance if hurting vulnerable people

I personally find each and every one of these arguments invalid. Everybody has the right to live in an echo chamber, but mandating it for everyone else is something that goes a bit too far.

Has humanity really developed into a situation where words and thoughts are more hurtful than sticks and stones?

Edit: Original context https://slrpnk.net/post/554148

Controversial topic, feel free to discuss!

  • Hastur@sh.itjust.worksOPMEnglish
    11·
    1 year ago

    Nothing here contradicts what I wrote. Can you please quote my post and tell me what exactly is wrong? Please see how mRNA works and then look at my postz if you find anything wrong with it and evidence where I was wrong, I’m happy to correct.

    Right now you’re parrotting the CDC website which doesn’t contradict me in the slightest.

    Here look at this first https://youtu.be/TbaCxIJ_VP4

    • Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      21·
      1 year ago

      If you think that doesn’t contradict your vaccines= gene therapy point, you need to recheck the definition of gene therapy.

      It modifies the genetic structure in the HOST through one of a few methods, none of which are : provide modified RNA genetic material to produce a specific compound, unless said modified RNA also introduces desired genes into the host cells.

      https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellular-gene-therapy-products/what-gene-therapy#:~:text=Gene therapy is a technique,healthy copy of the gene

      Now if you wanted to be obtuse and say that anything that has any sort of genetic material in it designed to interact with the human body, then you could argue that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy. By the definition and by method of interaction they are at best adjacent, not gene therapy.

      • Hastur@sh.itjust.worksOPMEnglish
        11·
        1 year ago

        If you think that doesn’t contradict your vaccines= gene therapy point, you need to recheck the definition of gene therapy.

        You haven’t read what I wrote or you haven’t understood it. I did not say: It is gene therapy.

        I did not say: I think it’s gene therapy. I haven’t made any statement about my opinion on that matter.

        I said: Given the, simplified, explanation of how mRNA vaccines work an argument could be made to call it gene therapy.

        I did NOT say that this is my argument. I did NOT say that calling mRNA vaccines gene therapy is right (or wrong, I did NOT make ANY judgment on that matter).

        So either you’re intentionally misreading my statements or you’re not able to understand that even if I don’t agree with an opinion I might be able to follow it’s inherent logic which is what I did.

        In any case I don’t see value in further engaging on that topic with you.