"If he doesn't believe exactly what I believe then he's not a True Scotsman."

I'm not going to scan every word the man has ever said or written to defend against the assertions you're just throwing out there without proof, but "talking about masking" is not a thought crime, and talking critically about our reaction to Covid is something that should be within the scope of reasonable conversation on the left.

Also, no, he doesn't want to defund mRNA research. You're talking about Kennedy.

▲

rcpt 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Alright you don't have to "scan every word" but at least read a little bit about the guy

https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/yes-mrna-vaccine-science-sho...

▲

timr 2 days ago | parent [-]

Did you read it? It doesn't say what you think it says.

To wit: he says that the mRNA cancer vaccines are a scientific dead end, that the existing mRNA vaccines' research can be funded by industry, there are good alternatives, and that the technology has been tainted in the public mind. Therefore he supports de-prioritizing the public research.

None of these arguments can be characterized as "wants to defund mRNA research". As someone who largely agrees with all of those points, if you came to me tomorrow and said "here's a promising new application for mRNA technology that industry won't support", then I'd consider funding it.

I'm so sick of people treating nuanced arguments like bingo cards.

▲

ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> To wit: he says that the mRNA cancer vaccines are a scientific dead end, that the existing mRNA vaccines' research can be funded by industry, there are good alternatives, and that the technology has been tainted in the public mind. Therefore he supports de-prioritizing the research.

> None of these arguments can be characterized as "wants to defund mRNA research".

If I said "paying our mortgage is a dead-end, someone else can fund it, there are good alternatives to paying it, and therefore I'm de-prioritizing paying it"…

Would "I'm defunding our mortgage" be a substantially accurate summary of my position? (Yes.)

▲

timr 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Defunding == "taking all the money away".

Deprioritizing == "giving priority to something else".

It isn't hard to be nuanced. Particularly in this case, when you realize that the manufacturers of the mRNA Covid vaccines have made literally billions of dollars with which to do research.

▲

ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent [-]

> It isn't hard to be nuanced.

It takes a lot of effort to find that much nuance.

The nuanced description for your position is "a pretty huge stretch".

▲

timr 2 days ago | parent [-]

It's literally the definitions of the words.

▲

ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent [-]

Look who's suddenly struggling with nuance now.

Deprioritizing something enough becomes defunding pretty fast.

Like that five year old JIRA ticket that no one bothers with.

▲

timr 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Deprioritizing something enough becomes defunding pretty fast.

And right there, you acknowledge the difference. Have a nice day.

▲

ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent [-]

> And right there, you acknowledge the difference.

"I'm not murdering you, I'm just doing a very, very large blood draw!"

Do you find people fall for this often?

	▲	2 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

notahacker 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Also, regardless of whether his other arguments are neutral and technical in between swipes at Biden policy, I don't think a "Bay Area liberal" opens his argument with the suggestion that NIH funding policies should be heavily influenced by the possibility certain classes of treatment might be refused by conservatives sufficiently susceptible to conspiratorial arguments against them...

▲

anthem2025 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I’d characterize it as someone who wants to defund mRNA research, because that’s literally what you said he wants to do.

But I’m not a fascist trying to justify the total destruction of the CDC anti-vaxxer dipshits.

▲

const_cast 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Oh, here's comes the "repeating what Republicans say right back to their face is literally 1984!!1!" people...

▲

anigbrowl 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Why didn't you apply this level of analysis to the parent claim (without evidence) that 'Prasad is a bay area liberal' as if everyone in the bay area had the same political views?

You're very pedantic and argumentative on multiple threads, but your pedantry only seems to run in one direction.

▲

timr 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Why didn't you apply this level of analysis to the parent claim (without evidence) that 'Prasad is a bay area liberal'

I posted evidence: there was a Wall-Street Journal editorial calling Prasad a liberal. He was attacked by the right for being a leftist. It's all extremely well-documented. It just wasn't enough of an ideological purity test for you, I suppose. I'm sorry that I can't post a binary dump of the man's brain.

(I've also personally listened to dozens of hours of the podcasts, so I know very well where he stands. You're more than welcome to do the same, since it's all out there -- don't take my word for it.)

> as if everyone in the bay area had the same political views? You're very pedantic and argumentative on multiple threads, but your pedantry only seems to run in one direction.

That's the weirdest way of saying "you defend your argument" that I think I've ever seen. Thanks?

	▲	anigbrowl a day ago \| parent [-]
		I posted evidence: there was a Wall-Street Journal editorial calling Prasad a liberal That answer doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because I was asking you about a reaction to someone else's claim. That's the weirdest way of saying "you defend your argument" that I think I've ever seen. Thanks? It's not a compliment. Axe-grinding doesn't make for good discussion, and you seem far more reliant on rhetoric than would be needed if you just explained your point of view up front. It's getting into sealioning territory.