unanswered

Please show me the part of my comment where I alleged a conspiracy? Or said anything about the woke?

I hate to be that guy, but... it's not irony.

In this case, it's design. Increasing social injustice is the whole point, because that ensures increased political power for those who campaign on social justice.

So in other words all of the non-debunked reasons for <30 to get vaccinated are all about individual health, and have no impact on anyone else's health.

They aren't the same, but llogiq is both. (Now just an /r/rust mod.)

The problem with this theory is that the moderation team has been entirely supportive of Ms. 'Kill' so far, and actively works to silence dissent about her position in public Rust spaces. (Maybe not so much as the unofficial mods, but I personally was on the receiving end of llogiq's overreaction in /r/rust to any dissent.) I believe they would take her side in the dispute which Klabnik vaguebooked about a few months ago.

> saying that employees are striking in 20 countries is completely false.

It elicited the desired feelings and therefore it was completely true.

So set `X = "other Rust team members"`. Everything else in the comment was just for drama.

> Is there any good way to craft a message like this?

"We are resigning and our reasons have been shared privately with X group. <eom>"

But since the goal of the whole exercise is to generate publicity and drama, the above was an unacceptable approach and the approach actually taken was highly effective.

As we all know, non-heterosexual people are a myth and probably shouldn't be allowed to work in jobs with anyone anyways ... ?

But... he didn't? Most of the studies he found no fault with. This seems to be a striking example of alternate facts you have picked up from the same article...

Sure, and I almost edited my original comment when I made it to clarify that as far as we know, Ivermectin isn't a very good protease inhibitor. That's what the fact-check should have said. Instead, we were fed a pile of garbage because the garbage sounds more comforting to those who emotionally need Ivermectin to be horse medicine.

But I don't think that Scott has done more than offer a suggestion as to how the studies might be flawed; no matter how compelling the suggestion, it isn't evidence. Otherwise you're just consuming more nicely-dressed garbage, which is even more dangerous because you get to feel superior to those consuming the normal garbage.

What would constitute good evidence for the worms theory is, you know, a study actually studying that. Otherwise the theory is just assuming that a lot of the people benefited by Ivermectin do have worms, when that hasn't even been measured.

> the option to pay with just money simply is not there.

You seem to be confused about the concept of consent.