> along with the Milgram experiment that people should lookup

Don't bother, the experiment was so unethical it cannot be replicated properly. Furthermore, the way it was presented to the public was deceptive; only some of the results were widely reported and some of those suppressed results draw into question the popular narrative of the experiments outcomes.

For instance, it is popularly claimed in undergrad psych classes that the Milgram experiments showed people comply with authority. But what is meant by authority is left unqualified. In the popularly described versions of the experiments, the authority ('the experimenter') presented themselves as a scientist and used appeals to the value of science to persuade the test subjects ('the teachers'.) What they never deigned to teach me in my undergrad psych class is the compliance rates fell when the presentation of the authority was changed, and also fell when the experiments were performed away from the context of Yale University in New Haven. This suggests that people don't blindly comply with authority; personal value systems play a role in determining how likely somebody is to comply with a particular sort of authority. This seems wholly unsensational to me; somebody who values science is more likely to comply with a scientist. Somebody who likes cops is more likely to comply with cops. And nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann enthusiastically complied with nazi authorities because Eichmann was a nazi (contrary to his claim of merely following any authority blindly.)

As an aside, i recommend the book "Ordinary Men". It tells the story of middle aged reserve policemen that weren't indoctrinated Nazis ( and a non insignificant part of them were communist-sympathising dock workers pre-war) and their trail of atrocities in Poland. It makes a decent case that there's more to it than "was just a Nazi", even if really isn't "just followed authority blindly".

If there is another forum I would hope similar comments are also downvoted or deleted there because it's completely unrelated to the discussion, and you're also taking the opportunity to take cheap political shots at easy targets. Don't do that. Dr. Fauci doesn't even work for the CDC. You're better than this, you don't have to set up these rhetorical traps to have a discussion.

Complaining about negative karma, downvotes, or dislikes is pretty much the best way to receive more of it.

Going on the attack against your imagined perception of your downvoters and then the platform itself and all of its users is also pretty justifiably worth downvoting.

> Fauci as the saviour in Stockholme Syndrome...

Not a downvoter (to your comment, I rarely vote) but does anybody pro-mask/pro-vaccine/pro-lockdown actually consider him a saviour? All I see (as a non American) is folks on the right hating him being considered a saviour... but I don't find a single post glorifying him even on left-leaning reddit.

I'm a democrat who finds fauci completely uninteresting. He's a skillful bureaucrat with health experience but not an effective communicator. I don't think that listening to him and doing exactly what he suggests is the wisest course of action, but it's certainly not the least wise.

The only people who care about Fauci, or even say his name, are the people who need an effigy to burn and a boogeyman to pin all their fears and conspiracies on. To most Americans, he is a semi-remarkable bureaucrat who had a couple of weeks time on TV and managed to get a tiny bit of name recognition out of it. To the right, he's the central puppet master, solely holding the strings of a shadowy global conspiracy by the Deep State to use 5G and vaccines to mind control the world into the New World Order. Look at their forums, he's somehow become this terrifying Bond Villain to these guys. It used to be Hillary, now it's Fauci. They need an evil mastermind to focus on.

No, the language of "savior" tends to come from religious extremists.

It's just the psychological term used as part of explaining Stockholm Syndrome behaviour. It doesn't mean it's conscious behave or a conscious belief.

It's invented bullshit? Got it.

meh. not the best explanation or even use of the term.

Pro-vax, pro-science here. I respect him for trying to help our society in dealing with infectious disease but do not worship him (that's saved only for David Bowie).

My take on anti-vaxxers is that they have a "religious" relationship to their belief system and therefor project their personal assumptions onto others.

I’m deeply troubled that Bowie worshipped him

Ha. No, that's coming from me. He was a Rock God after all.

And you're so certain, perhaps even arrogant even, that you're belief in "science" isn't a "religious" ideological relationship?

You're on a message board dedicated to tech and you don't believe in the scientific method? GTFO.

Thanks for having my back. I'd buy you a beer if you were near.

The word "belief" gets mangled intentionally in the case above. "Belief" as in "understand" versus "hold to be true regardless or questioning" are very different things.

I'm humble enough to know that I don't know everything and can be wrong. And if I'm wrong I'm willing to learn anew.

For example, I was raised on the concept that dietary fat was bad (margarine was healthier than butter) and we now know this is not the case.

I'm not a trained immunologist like you, so I can only work with the basic knowledge that the immune system "learns" the chemical fingerprint of attackers and that vaccines mimic that to train the immune system. If I'm wrong I'd love to learn what is correct.

Can you say the same for yourself? Is the arrogance you sense coming from you?

You're so close to seeing the deeper complexity.

> For example, I was raised on the concept that dietary fat was bad (margarine was healthier than butter) and we now know this is not the case.

Do you know who perpetuated that lie, that dietary fat was bad? Instead of waiting for you to guess, I'll tell you: it was a for-profit industrial complex who wanted to make money.

The pharmaceutical industry is also a for-profit industry, so now that you realize you were tricked about dietary fat - do you presume that the pharmaceutical industry wouldn't do the same?

You have really interesting deflection tactics, I must say, and the put-down attempts are quite subtle compared to most people.

And you're not honest about how a person learns information: you claim you can only work with basic knowledge of the immune system, putting forward that again as a strawman - an argument I never made for you to needd to counter - probably because you weren't able to actually argue against any points I actually made, so you needed the strawman as filler to make it look like you could defend your position.

Here, watch these videos, and then we can actually focus on argument points you disagree with - you'll have to find evidence/sources to refute the specifics to what these highly credentialed and experienced doctors and experts say though, and not just smear campaign articles on them:

Here's a 38 minute summary video of a longer 5+ hour video of testimony of experts: https://rumble.com/vtamrn-covid-19-a-second-opinion-shorter-...

Here's the full 5+ hour video of testimony: https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html - "COVID-19: A Second Opinion" (discussion from experts begins around 40 minute mark)

I'm curious too, are you familiar with Noam Chomsky's Manufactured Consent book - more so the mechanisms of how you can manipulate a population to being okay with the government taking certain actions?

>Not a downvoter (to your comment, I rarely vote) but does anybody pro-mask/pro-vaccine/pro-lockdown actually consider him a saviour?

Fauci devotional candles are available for sale (<https://www.bing.com/search?q=fauci+devotional+candle>).

One might laugh and say that only weirdos might buy them ... But said weirdos include Fauci himself (<https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/twitter-notices-something...>).

If someone made a devotional candle of you, wouldn't you buy one? I absolutely would. Not because I think anyone should be praying to me but because it's f'ing hilarious.

Could have been a gift. If I was in the same position, I might buy a few for a laugh at the absurdity.

I've yet to find any compelling evidence that says that vaccines do not work (in fact quite the contrary).

Conversations with anti-vaxxers in my circle are no different than those of deep religious conviction -- they believe it because they believe it and nothing can change their mind.

Conversely, I'm more than happy to change my mind if compelling evidence/reasoning presents itself. That's not happened yet. Now its your turn: explain why vaccines do not work and how the immune system cannot be trained by exposure to vaccines.

I'm not going to waste my time with someone who puts begins with such an obvious strawman.

If you can spot your strawman in your very last sentence and admit to it then I'll engage with you genuinely and thoughtfully.