Some observations:
-
I am more hesitant to post content in public spaces because I do not always have energy to do deep research needed to debunk fact-checking responses.
-
I am more cautious about what I post, as I don't enjoy being publicly shown to have made an error (which many readers will assume to have occurred if I don't reply to factcheck type criticisms)
-
As a result, I am slowing down. Sure, some things which would be in the public interest to be publicised are getting past me, but the quality of the posts I am making publicly is going up.
Ditto everything above for face to face conversations.
Basically the "fact-checking" and censorship is making me carefully double-check my conclusions before making any kind of public statement. If others are doing the same, this means that the quality of argument being presented from the side of those who question the mainstream narrative is being consistently improved and strengthened.
I think this explains the recent media debacle around Ivermectin. It is getting increasingly difficult for them to create the illusion of fact-checking, and as a result they are panicking and getting careless. This is making even more people start to pay attention. For example, my sister has started to research Ivermectin following conversation with me. (She is very trusting and has taken the Vax. All her information sources are mainstream). This weekend I was able to show her that almost everything she had read about Ivy in the mainstream is unreliable at best, and deliberately fradulent at worst. As a result I see the early signs of her beginning to question what she is being told.
So my take-away from this is, let us recognise the opportunity in the censorship, and just keep making it harder and harder for them to debunk the increasingly coherent and compelling arguments mounting against the media narrative. I still believe that Ivermectin is the key to unlocking the conspiracy around vaccines, covid, the election, and all the other malfeasance that lead up to what are increasingly looking like pre-meditated crimes.
Well put it this way, despite the fact that I care intensely about people and genuinely want what's best for the people that I dislike and disagree with, I don't think anyone would describe me as "nice". You know there's that class of person that when you think about them, you just think, yep, they're a "nice" person? And then there's that other group who you recognise as being maybe an acquired taste, or a bit bolshy or argumentative? I think I'm that second group, and it makes sense to me that we would evolve to have both types in our societies. The slightly difficult, contrary sorts who are always poking into everything and want to know why and how all the time. And then the possibly more stable, just keep your head down and get on with it types. Both necessary for a stable society, but have very different roles to play.
As to whether we're born that way or whether it's a function of life experience, I reckon it's mostly innate, but whether it gets dampened down or highlighted is a function of life experience.
I agree with you - it's really grotesque. I think the majority of people are just blindly following the rules and doing what they think they're supposed to do and are going to be horrified when they realise what has been going on. It takes a particular sort to ask the really searching questions, and I'm not sure those sorts of people get into positions of administrative influence very often. If they're anything like me, they struggle to handle the frustration, and cop out and leave the tedious and frustrating work of administration to those who don't get so bothered by it all... So I can't then really blame them for not seeing what they weren't ever trying to see in the first place.
I really DON'T think that applies to journalists though. If you're writing content to be consumed by the masses, you have one job, and one job only, and that's to do what you can to reveal the truth. And if you can't do that, you should just shut up :)