910
this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
910 points (98.4% liked)
politics
19252 readers
1958 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The incomplete characterization that the drug was READY for us markets.
It is not fda approved.
Edit After discussion, the op elected to make the seen edits in their comment. I'd refer you to them.
@astreus never made that claim.
I agree, I did not make that claim! And I do find it a bit weird that people are using that line of attack. But c'est la vie. I was wrong about what the treatment did, I was wrong about the level of verification it had, however we are singing from the same hymn sheet
This has already been discussed and op met my edit request. You aren't part of this.
For the sake of transparency, I edited before you suggested I did - hence my comment "I had not done the research and have edited my comment above." 😉
My edit request was met. No comment on order of operations.
Now who's being disingenuous 😂
The implicature of cause and effect is reversed
When I made my claim your comment was not of quality, you hadn't edited yet. When token boomer was commenting to me, you had.
Nope, I had already. Hence why I said "I have edited my comment" and then you said "you should edit your comment.
Well that's fucking wrong else I wouldn't have started this whole thing, as I've indicated your edit is satisfactory
Check again.
"My original comment was a glib link to a wikipedia page. I had not done the research and have edited my comment above"
To which you replied:
"Your last sentence here would change the sentiment of your original comment in a positive way. I encourage an edit."
I was going to reply with "what, I should edit my comment again to say I have edited my comment" but decided it wasn't as funny typed as in my head.
Sorry, mate, you are wrong. But over the most stupidly ridiculously small thing on the internet (and that's saying something)
I just want us to be clear: your satisfaction/demands mean literally nothing to me so please don't take credit for the other poster helping me do my research 🤷♂️
You're the one reviving this thread. You posted your top level comment. The other commenter destroyed your bullshit claim, and I said ,"wow this really highlighted the bullshit". You hadn't edited then, cause both of our comments wouldn't make sense.
Unless you have timestamps, I believe your edit came either at the same time, or after I and the other comment called for you to tidy up your misinformation, which you did. Of course you didn't do it for me or because of me, I'm not your mom.
You got called out and are now flailing. Just let it go
My "you should edit" comment was may 6th at 356.
Your edit was at may 6 425.
Edit The point of all of this end of the thread is that token boomer showed up far later than that, of any edits, acting like none of them happened
I'm not flailing, I'm pointing out you are trying to rewrite history.
On top of that the other commenter didn't "destroy" my claim nor was it "bullshit". They added context based on an assumption I didn't make (i.e. vaccine = cure) which led me to do more research and add context that changed the level of enthusiasm I had.
What was bullshit was you deciding it was disingenuous AND you saying I had made changes you had requested. Neither of those statements are true.
"I believe your edit came either at the same time" - you do see the irony of asserting your belief like it's fact in a thread where I added my belief to a fact and mangled it as a result? You do see it, right?
I find it kinda funny that I admitted where I was wrong but you are literally unable to.
Anyway, just clarifying: the OTHER poster got me to edit based on their HELPFUL comments. You didn't do anything apart from state obvious facts about FDA approval and try to take credit for being so wise and insightful
I provided timestamps.
I never did shit but call out the the other dudes comment was good, and yours sucked. The fact you can't drop this is flailing.
The fact that you find my fda facts obvious, yet your didn't use them in your original comment, takes us full circle to why I commented in the first place lol