-
hopefully you can explain how your statement isn’t disinformation, as part of the discussion
I think this term gets banded around as a means to disqualify discussion that isn't fitting into a broad consensus. I think that's really dangerous. Disinfo is when one party purposely (in bad faith) manipulates information to achieve an interested end. For example, operation mincemeat in ww2. British spies planted disinformation about the allied attack on Sicily. Brilliant disinformation campaign.
radar71-
BUT wearing a CLOTH mask doubles your chances of infection.
My guess is you wrote that to start a discussion, and you haven’t changed it even though you’ve agreed it’s an unfounded statement. Is your aim to start a discussion about a highly political topic? (Sadly, this issue has become political, like you said in your first post.) If that is your aim, then you’re using incorrect info to achieve an aim, that’s disinformation.
Since you bring up WW2, I’ll mention that there’s been a few articles written recently about how we’re in the middle of WW3: Humanity against Covid. We need coordinated, society-wide efforts in order to beat this thing. Right now, Britain is losing this war. Right now, Britain is divided against a common enemy. Let’s definitely discuss what strategies and tools are useful, but let’s do it rationally, using correct information to do so.
-
operation mincemeat in ww2
Brrr, this is grisly:
Two members of British intelligence obtained the body of Glyndwr Michael, a tramp who died from eating rat poison, dressed him as an officer of the Royal Marines and placed personal items on him identifying him as the fictitious Captain (Acting Major) William Martin. Correspondence between two British generals which suggested that the Allies planned to invade Greece and Sardinia, with Sicily as merely the target of a feint, was also placed on the body.
I can't really imagine Glyndwr Michael agreeing to leave his remains to deception ...
Adhiero
Oliver Schick
Debate all you’d like, I’m a lawyer, I live for it, but if you’re going to misrepresent something you’re using as evidence, don’t be surprised when you’re called out on it.
Specifically:
Emphasis mine.
The study does not prove this, unless you’re talking to Vietnamese healthcare workers in hospital settings. Scientists could take this as a starting point for further investigation, but you’re wrong in saying that using a cloth mask is more dangerous than not using a mask. Given that people die from getting these decisions wrong, I find it reckless.
I had assumed good faith, so I suggested you amend your post and explained why. You didn’t address my point that your post included disinformation, you only took issue with my ‘accusation’. I’ve explained my point in further detail, and hopefully you can explain how your statement isn’t disinformation, as part of the discussion.
Edited to lower my word count.