Neil Young - good bloke.

[Olive]

Yes. If someone says "to put a fire out the best thing is to pour petrol on it" then that is a H and S risk and should be deleted immediately. If some one says that Covid-19 is a hoax or a moneymaking scheme and should be ignored that is also a H and S risk and should be deleted immediately.

[Magoo]

if someone on the internet suggest you drink battery acid, one would hope they were nipped in the bud.

[C_T_Russell]

Whats good about someone that supports censorship?
Its information control at its finest.
Kudos to Spotify for not backing down.

Robert Malone was one of the scientists who helped develop M-RNA technology, so we should be listening to such "experts" like we are told to.
Only issue is if these "experts" dont agree with the narrative, they get censored.
Why cant people be allowed to listen to both sides of the argument and make up their own minds for themselves? Information control reaks of a cult to me.

The joe rogan podcast is an excellent show and covers many topics of interest. He has done good stories about child sex abuse coverups in various institutions and other stories where the MSM gives little coverage.

Censorship is about protecting people from 'stuff' that may do harm to others, in all forms of media...
Anyone who doesn't support some form of censorship needs there head read TBH as there is a LOT of harmful stuff out there...

yes Joe Rogan may do some good work and provide useful information but that does not negate the severity of what he is doing by promoting misinformation

I once belonged to a cult and escaped many years ago, always told to only read their "official" publications, now everything i see in our media and from the government about this virus and vaccine is exactly presented in the same way, being told to only "trust" their "official" sources i.e the MOH website, etc.
How is that not the same thing? On one hand they say to do your own research, but then tell us only to read "their" information. So many parallels, its not funny.
Everything from the "outside" is dangerous, but "our" information is safe!
I like a balanced view on things, im only getting one side of the story from all the material i have read, with many questions unanswered and being told basically to trust them and the same narrative that its "safe and effective"
How safe and effective? At best 90% effective, but more evidence is showing its closer to 70% effective, and how safe? They could have said "reasonably safe" there is still a danger (myocarditis) Dr Cambpell touched on this in one of his videos how nothing is 100% safe, so its not accurate to say its safe when a certain number have well documented to have had myocarditis, no matter how low the percentage is.

---

Yes.  If someone says "to put a fire out the best thing is to pour petrol on it" then that is a H and S risk and should be deleted  immediately.  If some one says that Covid-19 is a hoax or a moneymaking scheme and should be ignored that is also a H and S risk and should be deleted immediately.

completley agree, but thats not what im getting at.

[Lilith7]

Censorship is about protecting people from 'stuff' that may do harm to others, in all forms of media...
Anyone who doesn't support some form of censorship needs there head read TBH as there is a LOT of harmful stuff out there...

yes Joe Rogan may do some good work and provide useful information but that does not negate the severity of what he is doing by promoting misinformation

I once belonged to a cult and escaped many years ago, always told to only read their "official" publications, now everything i see in our media and from the government about this virus and vaccine is exactly presented in the same way, being told to only "trust" their "official" sources i.e the MOH website, etc.
How is that not the same thing? On one hand they say to do your own research, but then tell us only to read "their" information. So many parallels, its not funny.
Everything from the "outside" is dangerous, but "our" information is safe!
I like a balanced view on things, im only getting one side of the story from all the material i have read, with many questions unanswered and being told basically to trust them and the same narrative that its "safe and effective"
How safe and effective? At best 90% effective, but more evidence is showing its closer to 70% effective, and how safe? They could have said "reasonably safe" there is still a danger (myocarditis) Dr Cambpell touched on this in one of his videos how nothing is 100% safe, so its not accurate to say its safe when a certain number have well documented to have had myocarditis, no matter how low the percentage is.

---

Yes.  If someone says "to put a fire out the best thing is to pour petrol on it" then that is a H and S risk and should be deleted  immediately.  If some one says that Covid-19 is a hoax or a moneymaking scheme and should be ignored that is also a H and S risk and should be deleted immediately.

completley agree, but thats not what im getting at.

Dear jaysus!  

Getting people to protect their health & that of those around them is not in any way the 'same as being in  a cult'. Perhaps you also believe the vaccine against Polio was wrong & should never have happened, despite it having prevented thousands of children from suffering or dying from it, or potentially  life in an iron lung?

And if you're genuinely 'only getting one side of the story' then the question of how the devil do you get the stuff you post in here has to be asked, since its very clearly not coming from govt sources, so it does rather look as if you've come across it elsewhere. 
Perhaps an anti vaxxer site - there's no shortage of them. 

[Magoo]

"so its not accurate to say its safe when a certain number have well documented to have had myocarditis, no matter how low the percentage is"

purely yes. but we acknowledge that, no ones arguing, no ones lying.
i knew when i went in for my jabs what the potential side effects were..death at worst.
one in a million might count for sperm, but to a vaccine to help millions its nothing.
except to you.
you want to base some theory that weve been deceived, ulterior motives, government manipulation blah blah
we havent, nothing to see, unless you want to see it

thats the minutia you get dragged into when discussing this with someone predisposed to believing non-mainstream sources.
on the whole it looks insane.
they seem to think that if you break it down and pick it apart it might make more sense,
70% effective 90% effective myocadiac hoo hah. it doesnt matter, its us trying. its us giving a shit. its us going down fighting.
all the seditious nonsense and dark nefarious shadow play exists where you find it.
stop knocking it, get on board and fight ffs.

---

this might be our generations time to stand up
it would be good look ack on the pandemic of 20/22 and say yeah we kicked its arse.
it would e good to go down in history having faced death and laughed in its face, part of the
bad-arse generation.
we've not built monuments, nor mighty public endeavours, we havent contributed thru hardship like our forefathers did
getting here and breaking the land.
our legacy thus far is an exhausted planet and the cell phone.
not much in the grand scheme of things.
even the quakers went to battle.


i should have been a motivational speaker

[king1]

Censorship is about protecting people from 'stuff' that may do harm to others, in all forms of media...
Anyone who doesn't support some form of censorship needs there head read TBH as there is a LOT of harmful stuff out there...

yes Joe Rogan may do some good work and provide useful information but that does not negate the severity of what he is doing by promoting misinformation

I once belonged to a cult and escaped many years ago, always told to only read their "official" publications, now everything i see in our media and from the government about this virus and vaccine is exactly presented in the same way, being told to only "trust" their "official" sources i.e the MOH website, etc.
How is that not the same thing? On one hand they say to do your own research, but then tell us only to read "their" information. So many parallels, its not funny.
Everything from the "outside" is dangerous, but "our" information is safe!
I like a balanced view on things, im only getting one side of the story from all the material i have read, with many questions unanswered and being told basically to trust them and the same narrative that its "safe and effective"
How safe and effective? At best 90% effective, but more evidence is showing its closer to 70% effective, and how safe? They could have said "reasonably safe" there is still a danger (myocarditis) Dr Cambpell touched on this in one of his videos how nothing is 100% safe, so its not accurate to say its safe when a certain number have well documented to have had myocarditis, no matter how low the percentage is.

I'm sensing trust issues... Surely you are not comparing the NZ Government to a cult? But just in case you are, one relatively important difference is motive of the two.  I would surmise cults are generally self serving for the benefit of the leadership only, whereas Government is a democratically elected by the people for the people...

[SueDonim]

I once belonged to a cult and escaped many years ago, always told to only read their "official" publications, now everything i see in our media and from the government about this virus and vaccine is exactly presented in the same way, being told to only "trust" their "official" sources i.e the MOH website, etc.
How is that not the same thing? On one hand they say to do your own research, but then tell us only to read "their" information. So many parallels, its not funny.
Everything from the "outside" is dangerous, but "our" information is safe!
I like a balanced view on things, im only getting one side of the story from all the material i have read, with many questions unanswered and being told basically to trust them and the same narrative that its "safe and effective"
How safe and effective? At best 90% effective, but more evidence is showing its closer to 70% effective, and how safe? They could have said "reasonably safe" there is still a danger (myocarditis) Dr Cambpell touched on this in one of his videos how nothing is 100% safe, so its not accurate to say its safe when a certain number have well documented to have had myocarditis, no matter how low the percentage is.

---

The biggest difference between your cult experience and our current situation is that we are NOT being told to only read NZ Government information, and we have all the source information at our fingertips if we choose to look for it.

In times past people had only the "official" provider's word for what they were saying, but now with the internet all the original evidence and scholarly articles are available to read. Many are normally paywalled and cost huge sums to read, but most publishers are making covid information free.

People often use the term "research" to mean they have done an information search, most often on Google these days. In the scholarly world, research is the work the scientists and doctors do. They do trials and then publish the results in articles in reputable journals so that others can see, judge and replicate the work. All open and above board. It's this evidence that drives the advice we are given. And when you read the evidence, you can see that it matches what we are being told, but with caveats because of how fast things are changing. Research that would normally take months or years to be published is available very quickly, so those following up on the findings may see them differently from the original authors. The benefit is that we can watch it all as it happens, the downside is that it's confusing when experts have opposing views.

Granted, that's a very simplistic view, but if you want to have a look, a good way in is to use PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) or Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/ and is very different from ordinary Google).

When you search ordinary Google, your search results include all sorts of stuff that may or may not be credible. Google records which sites you looked at and tries to helpfully give you more of the same next time. Before long, you only get to see the fringe material and don't realise there's a whole other world of information that you're missing.

With regard to "safety", yes, the ball keeps moving, but when I looked up vaccine safety back when it was first available, I was concerned about my risk of autoimmune disease. What I learned was that the vaccine can be associated with an autoimmune response, and can be associated with myocarditis, plus other things. But for these issues, the vaccine risk is FAR FAR FAR less than the risk of those things happening in people who catch covid. So the absolute safety of the vaccine isn't guaranteed, but in relative terms, yes, it is very safe.

[dken31]

"Self-serving for the benefit of the leadership" very aptly describes the current Labour Party (and most modern political parties to be fair).

There is also most definitely a cult-like quality to Adern's leadership style. The "we are your single source of truth" line was probably the most blatant, but just generally the way she talks and operates suggest a pretty deeply-held messiah complex, and so many people are all too ready to extol her virtues with religious fervour and place their blind faith in her to save them.

---

I've even come across several people who have put up photos of Ardern in their homes in gratitude to her "saving them from covid". That is most definitely cult-level adoration.

[king1]

"Self-serving for the benefit of the leadership" very aptly describes the current Labour Party (and most modern political parties to be fair). 

There is also most definitely a cult-like quality to Adern's leadership style.  The "we are your single source of truth" line was probably the most blatant, but just generally the way she talks and operates suggest a pretty deeply-held messiah complex, and so many people are all too ready to extol her virtues with religious fervour and place their blind faith in her to save them.

---

I've even come across several people who have put up photos of Ardern in their homes in gratitude to her "saving them from covid".  That is most definitely cult-level adoration.

lol, it's no more a cult than Apple minions devotion to Apple and Steve Jobs.  It's respect and admiration, nothing more.

[Lilith7]

"Self-serving for the benefit of the leadership" very aptly describes the current Labour Party (and most modern political parties to be fair). 

There is also most definitely a cult-like quality to Adern's leadership style.  The "we are your single source of truth" line was probably the most blatant, but just generally the way she talks and operates suggest a pretty deeply-held messiah complex, and so many people are all too ready to extol her virtues with religious fervour and place their blind faith in her to save them.

---

I've even come across several people who have put up photos of Ardern in their homes in gratitude to her "saving them from covid".  That is most definitely cult-level adoration.

Bollocks.
"We are your single source of truth??!" Has this govt blocked all access to the internet for all Kiwis? No? Then that comment is utter bullshit, since the internet, libraries etc. etc. are readily accessible to all of us & what's more a grand total of no one is being discouraged from using any or all of those.

And frankly if you genuinely believe that there's a 'cult-like' quality to the PM's leadership then you might want to devote some time to recalling another recent leader said to have similar quality on leadership - John Key.

This might ring  a few bells:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDscbVWRBCw

[dken31]

Ardern, herself, said the government would "continue to be your single source of truth". I'm sure she didn't mean it literally, but it was more than just a "slip of the tongue". It provided an indication as to what she thought of the general public and her role as leader.

I'm with you on Key but that doesn't disprove the validity of my comments with regard to Ardern. Anytime a politician gets a large following of unquestioning adoring followers, it doesn't tend to be great for society. And there is no rational denying that, until recently at least, Ardern has enjoyed a lot of support from a general public that see her as essentially being able to do no wrong. Crediting her with things she really had no influence on and vehemently defending her when she was shown to have lied, stuffed up, acted in her own interests etc.

[Lilith7]

Ardern, herself, said the government would "continue to be your single source of truth".  I'm sure she didn't mean it literally, but it was more than just a "slip of the tongue". It provided an indication as to what she thought of the general public and her role as leader.

I'm with you on Key but that doesn't disprove the validity of my comments with regard to Ardern.  Anytime a politician gets a large following of unquestioning adoring followers, it doesn't tend to be great for society. And there is no rational denying that, until recently at least, Ardern has enjoyed a lot of support from a general public that see her as essentially being able to do no wrong.  Crediting her with things she really had no influence on and vehemently defending her when she was shown to have lied, stuffed up, acted in her own interests etc.

Then if its so very obvious that it wasn't meant literally, there's little point in pretending that it was, except to score silly political points.

I think the reason for the PM's popularity may be that she's the first PM I can recall to show what I think is called 'emotional intelligence', which she did at the time of the terrorist attack here. To the best of my knowledge, no previous leader here or anywhere had impulsively hugged someone enduring huge suffering - it just 'wasn't done'.
But she did it, & made political history; that's likely to stick in the minds of voters & while there may be some few who adore her unquestioningly, most will not.

Politicians lie & avoid things; that's par for the course with them & most are well aware of that.

[king1]

Ardern, herself, said the government would "continue to be your single source of truth".  I'm sure she didn't mean it literally, but it was more than just a "slip of the tongue". It provided an indication as to what she thought of the general public and her role as leader.

there was a lot of misinformation going around at the time (still is) and she was simply trying to say that they (government) could be the one and only qualified source of up to date and trustworthy information, for those who were confused by the said copious amounts of (mis)information.

[Lilith7]

An update on the situation.

https://buffalonews.com/entertainment/mu...Lgw7E4pXmI

"Much gnashing of teeth ensued from the Rogan-supporter camp, with many insisting that Young et al.’s actions were somehow interfering with Rogan’s free speech, or even “censoring” him.

That’s not how any of this works. Rogan is free to carry out his business with Spotify, just as Young, Mitchell, Nash and Lofgren are free to cease doing so. No one is stopping Rogan’s fans from listening to him. Similarly, fans of the artists who have removed their music from Spotify are free to listen to those artists elsewhere."

[king1]

An update on the situation.

https://buffalonews.com/entertainment/mu...Lgw7E4pXmI

"Much gnashing of teeth ensued from the Rogan-supporter camp, with many insisting that Young et al.’s actions were somehow interfering with Rogan’s free speech, or even “censoring” him.

That’s not how any of this works. Rogan is free to carry out his business with Spotify, just as Young, Mitchell, Nash and Lofgren are free to cease doing so. No one is stopping Rogan’s fans from listening to him. Similarly, fans of the artists who have removed their music from Spotify are free to listen to those artists elsewhere."

I love this paragraph, so true here as well 

There are many lessons to be learned here, but perhaps the most damning of them is the umpteenth revelation that our education systems have failed to adequately prepare somewhere in the region of 30% of the population for a life that requires logical analysis, deductive reasoning and adulting. As a result, the blatant spreading of lies and disinformation for profit is viewed as a legitimate “side” in the “both-sides-ism” philosophy. This would all be hilarious, if it wasn’t so tragic. 

[Lilith7]

An update on the situation.

https://buffalonews.com/entertainment/mu...Lgw7E4pXmI

"Much gnashing of teeth ensued from the Rogan-supporter camp, with many insisting that Young et al.’s actions were somehow interfering with Rogan’s free speech, or even “censoring” him.

That’s not how any of this works. Rogan is free to carry out his business with Spotify, just as Young, Mitchell, Nash and Lofgren are free to cease doing so. No one is stopping Rogan’s fans from listening to him. Similarly, fans of the artists who have removed their music from Spotify are free to listen to those artists elsewhere."

I love this paragraph, so true here as well 

There are many lessons to be learned here, but perhaps the most damning of them is the umpteenth revelation that our education systems have failed to adequately prepare somewhere in the region of 30% of the population for a life that requires logical analysis, deductive reasoning and adulting. As a result, the blatant spreading of lies and disinformation for profit is viewed as a legitimate “side” in the “both-sides-ism” philosophy. This would all be hilarious, if it wasn’t so tragic. 

Indeed - a strange country in many ways, America. Some of the more primitive, backward right wing Christians have decided that a book burning was a truly excellent idea.
In the 21st century.


https://god.dailydot.com/greg-locke-burn...fJqrg8TjVE

[SueDonim]

[quote pid='16767' dateline='1644042258']

There are many lessons to be learned here, but perhaps the most damning of them is the umpteenth revelation that our education systems have failed to adequately prepare somewhere in the region of 30% of the population for a life that requires logical analysis, deductive reasoning and adulting. As a result, the blatant spreading of lies and disinformation for profit is viewed as a legitimate “side” in the “both-sides-ism” philosophy. This would all be hilarious, if it wasn’t so tragic. 

[/quote]

This is why I had no sympathy for teachers that lost their jobs over vaccine mandates. They are supposed to be teaching "logical analysis" and "deductive reasoning" but weren't able to do it themselves. We are better off without them.

I have been in a support role where I was working with university students who didn't understand that assignments are not just about xxx subject, but are actually about learning how to find, analyse, understand and apply information. Their tutors had failed to show them that basic element of their reason for being.

[Lilith7]

Spotify has removed 113 episodes of Rogan's podcasts.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter...08763.html