So, as it is now my off hours again, back to easier topics like vaccines
Instead of responding to my 30 minute long response to Dr. Zelenko's points on vaccines, my sister has reacted by sending me another video from dr. Robert Malone:
https://thenewamerican.com/dr-robert-malone-this-is-the-largest-experiment-performed-on-human-beings-in-the-history-of-the-world/Now, it is certainly true that this guy is a hell of a lot smarter than Dr. Zelenko. If I were going to make a similar video, which I won't, it would be less damning. Much more of what he says is true, at least that's my preliminary impression.
But so what? There is still no update to be made here. I'm not the least bit surprised that a smart and knowledgeable person can make reasonable-sounding arguments for an hour about something completely wrong. And while the quality of arguments are a lot better, they're nowhere near good enough to warrant an update. You need to be very convincing to warrant an update by a completely one-sided rant of this kind, and I already spotted several red flags on the first listen, such as discussing Ivermectin without mentioning that THE EVIDENCE ON IT WORKING IS QUITE BAD.
It's an update from Zelenko in some sense. Zelenko made specific claims about why vaccines are harmful that are false and can be shown to be false. This guy makes something like a
gish gallop, consisting of repeatedly attacking
Weak Mans (CTRL+F "Weak Man") and generally implying a lot while making very few direct claims. I.e., in the part I've watched, he never actually makes any concrete claims about vaccine dangers, he just talks about how there is censorship and the FDA is corrupt and whatnot. When he talked about Ivermectin, he never actually said it works, he just talked about how people are calling it a horse drug and this is a bad argument, which is indeed true.
The real question here is why my sister thinks this kind of an asymmetry is ok and what I am to do about it. Even if I had the patience, why do another takedown video if she didn't even respond to the first? This is not how virtuous discussion works. If you send one video thinking it makes good points and I show it makes bad points, and supposedly you don't have a response to that, you don't then go and look for another video. Your expectation was violated; you update. This is mandated by Bayes' theorem.