Given that @delbigtree or one of his flunkies sat through the whole Summit, presumably he already has this information. Presumably he has a list of these “shocking statements” and picked the ones he thought to be the “most shocking” for his 9 minute compilation. 2/
-
Show this thread
-
Of course, if that’s what he did, then I highly doubt that anything he left off his “shocking highlights” video could be that bad because I’m sure he picked what he thought were the “most shocking” statements, and they weren’t that shocking at all! 3/
1 reply 5 retweets 42 likesShow this thread -
Certainly none of the statements featured showed “
@WHO scientists questioning vaccine safety,” his misrepresentation notwithstanding. So what’s left, in context, or out of context, is likely even less convincing as examples of “scientists questioning vaccine safety.” 4/1 reply 6 retweets 48 likesShow this thread -
Of course,
@delbigtree knows this. He’s a master antivaccine propagandist. He knows how to cherry pick with the best of them. When called on it, he knows to point to the rest of the Summit and say there’s lots more that’s just as bad without giving examples. 5/1 reply 6 retweets 52 likesShow this thread -
He knows that going through the whole Summit would take more time than most people have, and his claim puts the burden on them to figure out what he means and what statements he’s talking about over 16 hours of video. 6/
2 replies 4 retweets 47 likesShow this thread -
It’s an obvious technique, and I’ve seen it so many times before from so many antivaxxers, quacks, denialists, and cranks that I know it’s a distraction, a diversion from
@delbigtree’s cherry picking. 7/1 reply 4 retweets 43 likesShow this thread -
I was, however, amused by
@delbigtree’s statement that his 9 minute edit was “for short attention span viewers like you.” He obviously doesn’t think much of his audience. I’m also not so stupid as not to know that a short video is much more likely to go viral. 8/2 replies 7 retweets 48 likesShow this thread -
In any event, I predict that
@delbigtree will bluster, bullshit, and obfuscate, and, above all, fail to provide me with this information for each “shocking statement”: 1. The name of the speaker 2. Title of the presentation or panel 3. Timestamp when the statement begins 9/2 replies 6 retweets 49 likesShow this thread -
Sorry,
@delbigtree, I’m on to you. Your techniques of cherry picking, obfuscation, and Gish galloping do not impress me. I’ve seen them SO many times before from SO many antivaxxers over the last two decades I’ve been at this. You’re not even the best I’ve encountered.
10/108 replies 8 retweets 87 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @gorskon @delbigtree
Had a friend send me the hour long version for ‘my thoughts’. There’s so much fire-hosing I’ve had to break it down into 5minutely chunks so I have space to reply to each statement and point to the manipulation tactics in the process. Took me 1hr to do 10mins! Exhausting!
1 reply 2 retweets 6 likes
Any chance you could publish that or send it to me? Is like to see if we agree.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @delbigtree
Love to. It’s interesting though, conceptually how best to refute these things working on levels that aren’t really about facts but utilising psychological tools of manipulation to generate *enough fear, *enough doubt, *enough suspicion.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.