The U.S. anti-smoking campaign is a great model for fighting disinformation

[LeafByNiggle]

Whoa, where do you get that I think it is fine for corporations to lie? I don’t think that. I also think it is ridiculous that anyone thought cigarettes weren’t addictive. You didn’t need a tobacco executive to tell you that.

Yes you did! There are people today who smoke and still don’t believe cigarettes are addictive. The reason it was so important to publicize the truth is because the tobacco industry had paid “scientists” to say the opposite, and the people were genuinely confused as to which “expert” to believe. I remember. I lived through those times.

The tobacco executives didn’t violate the integrity of Congress because it has none.

The tobacco executives violated the integrity of the American people by delaying the truth as long as possible.

 

[exnihilo]

Yes you did! There are people today who smoke and still don’t believe cigarettes are addictive. The reason it was so important to publicize the truth is because the tobacco industry had paid “scientists” to say the opposite, and the people were genuinely confused as to which “expert” to believe. I remember. I lived through those times.

If I did then quote me. I didn’t so you can’t.

So scientists can be bought off? Add science to the fields lacking integrity. There are scientists that say all sorts of ridiculous things. Again, you can’t trust the experts.

The tobacco executives violated the integrity of the American people by delaying the truth as long as possible.

The truth didn’t rest in the hands of tobacco companies. If it did then American society is warped. Like I said cigarettes were called coffin nails a long time before the government decided they were bad for you.

 

[HCTC]

It occurs to me that just as individuals in the tobacco industry who were profiting tried to hide how addictive their products were, individuals in the political sphere who are profiting from Russian interference do not want the truth to be known.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Yes you did! There are people today who smoke and still don’t believe cigarettes are addictive. The reason it was so important to publicize the truth is because the tobacco industry had paid “scientists” to say the opposite, and the people were genuinely confused as to which “expert” to believe. I remember. I lived through those times.

If I did then quote me. I didn’t so you can’t.

I’m sorry, I thought it was clear that my response was to your very last sentence that I quoted. I should have deleted the first part of the quote so it would have looked like this:

You didn’t need a tobacco executive to tell you that.

Yes you did! There are people today who smoke and still don’t believe cigarettes are addictive. The reason it was so important to publicize the truth is because the tobacco industry had paid “scientists” to say the opposite, and the people were genuinely confused as to which “expert” to believe. I remember. I lived through those times.

So scientists can be bought off? Add science to the fields lacking integrity. There are scientists that say all sorts of ridiculous things. Again, you can’t trust the experts.

Even with blemishes like this, experts are still more likely to be correct than some guy on the internet (not referring to you, just any non-expert sources in general.)

The tobacco executives violated the integrity of the American people by delaying the truth as long as possible.

The truth didn’t rest in the hands of tobacco companies.

Actually, it did. The tobacco companies did know the truth, but hid it.

Like I said cigarettes were called coffin nails a long time before the government decided they were bad for you.

Colloquial names given by popular culture are not taken seriously by most people. Claiming that “everyone knew how bad cigarettes were” is revisionist history. As I said, I lived through those times. I saw it first hand.

 

[exnihilo]

Even with blemishes like this, experts are still more likely to be correct than some guy on the internet (not referring to you, just any non-expert sources in general.)

I’m not sure how we’d know that. What we do know is that the experts have often reversed themselves. In fact plenty of doctors advocated for cigarette smoking. We aren’t talking about tobacco company paid scientists but average physicians vetted by the state with a license to practice medicine.

Actually, it did. The tobacco companies did know the truth, but hid it.

The tobacco companies committed fraud just like most food and drug companies.

Colloquial names given by popular culture are not taken seriously by most people. Claiming that “everyone knew how bad cigarettes were” is revisionist history. As I said, I lived through those times. I saw it first hand.

Well, maybe not everyone. I guess there were some people who thought inhaling a burning substance was good for you. There might have been some people who didn’t notice the persistent cough of a long time smoker.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Even with blemishes like this, experts are still more likely to be correct than some guy on the internet (not referring to you, just any non-expert sources in general.)

I’m not sure how we’d know that. What we do know is that the experts have often reversed themselves. In fact plenty of doctors advocated for cigarette smoking. We aren’t talking about tobacco company paid scientists but average physicians vetted by the state with a license to practice medicine.

Yes, you can cherry-pick mistakes that experts have made. But I can go on and on indefinitely about mistakes that non-experts have made. It is a question of probability.

Colloquial names given by popular culture are not taken seriously by most people. Claiming that “everyone knew how bad cigarettes were” is revisionist history. As I said, I lived through those times. I saw it first hand.

Well, maybe not everyone. I guess there were some people who thought inhaling a burning substance was good for you. There might have been some people who didn’t notice the persistent cough of a long time smoker.

There were lots of anecdotes about Uncle Joe or Aunt Betty or Gramps who smoked a pack a day and lived to 100. And those anecdotes were true. It took quite sophisticated statistical studies to make the case more than just a guess.

 

[HCTC]

Claiming that “everyone knew how bad cigarettes were” is revisionist history.

You’re correct people didn’t know until they were informed. Doctor’s even told women that it was safe to smoke while they were pregnant. But what is more important in my opinion is that the tobacco industry executives lied about the fact that nicotine is addictive - even as they worked to make tobacco products more addictive. Even people whose common sense informed them that tobacco products were bad for their health, couldn’t quit because they didn’t know that they were dealing with a physical addiction.

 

[abucs]

Unlike the production of cigarettes. political parties are in the business of creating and benefitting from disinformation.

Political parties are the ones in government.

Using government to monitor disinformation is like using cigarette companies to monitor health.

 

[HCTC]

Given the behavior of our current president, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. However, the issue is not Trump’s disinformation but rather covert, disinformation from a foreign government.

I think that most people will agree that national security is one of the government’s main responsibilities. We furnish the government with a lot of money to put towards national security; and the government is well-equipped to protect our mission critical systems (of which the internet is one along with the power grid and others) from foreign interference - IF there is coordination from top level decision-makers and IF the American people demand that the government use the resources that we have provided to accomplish the national security job with which they are tasked.

 

[Feanor2]

I say the more they tax tobacco the better.

 

[HCTC]

I agree. The tax money from the sale of tobacco products is used in CA to fund public school nurses - among other things. When I posted this topic, I had no idea that the discussion would center on the use of tobacco. I thought it was generally accepted that discouraging the use of tobacco was a good thing. Surprise, surprise!

Maybe some people even believe that a campaign of covert misinformation by a foreign government is not a threat to national security…

 

[abucs]

The issue of disinformation by ones own government is far more important.

The basic truth is that a large and growing section of the population do not trust (especially Left) government control. This runs head on to the Lefts wish to control everything from language to culture through the state.

Example about the rate of criminal activity by African gangs in Melbourne. Australia has a refugee policy to settle people from South Sudan (among others). I taught at an elementary school with 25% children who were south Sudanese. There is a large problem of south Sudanese (in Melbourne) breaking into people’s homes, bashing them, assaulting them and just taking whatever they want to. The outcry of the community was met by lies from the police minister who said that South Sudanese were less likely to commit crimes than other Australians. Finally the stats came out.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/...w/news-story/8ca308022ba8fbbc4b89ed50504271c5

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/top-cop-says-sudanese-youths-are-overrepresented-aggravated-burglary/news-story/3789539c3c957348dc077110092194d9

Police admit Melbourne has African gang problem amid political stoush

Police concede Melbourne has a problem with African street gangs, after earlier denying their existence, as the State Government acknowledges "huge fear" in the community and outlines plans to tackle the problem.

www.abc.net.au

The worst examples of this were of course in Britain where police, politicians and social workers purposely looked the other way while hundreds of Muslim men went on a rampage of drugging, degrading and raping young white children.

Whether it be immigration, climate change or equality the government is invested in not criticising its politically correct religion and lying to the population is part of that. Giving government control over the flow of information and who to silence is just not on.

It is just not on. We don’t trust you.

The example of Tommy Robinson to follow.

 

[abucs]

Tommy Robinson is an English man reporting on alternative media. (which the government find hard to control).

After an outcry of the Muslim rape gangs mentioned above there were prosecutions and convictions. The authorities decided instead of sentencing all of the men together they would sentence them in groups of a handful or so. The ‘normal’ media would hardly cover the story. The couple of outlets that mentioned anything about the sentencing would hugely downplay the Islam connection. Tommy Robinson filmed outside the courthouse of one of the sentencing sessions. He was taken away by the police, rushed through a Kangaroo court and put in a maximum security jail in order to silence him.

This is not on.

Further the British government made it illegal for anyone to report on Tommy Robinson. It was also illegal to report that it was illegal to report on Tommy Robinson.

There followed two months of constant outcry and demonstrations by online groups and street marchers until the decision was reversed.

People cannot hope noticing the double standard between the treatment on the rape gangs who were left to themselves for years and Tommy Robinson who reporting on the sentencing was rushed to jail in the space of 5 hours.

Tommy is another one who will not bow to the religion of political correctness. His story.

Live Stream of Tommy’s report that put him in jail.

More regarding government control of the media.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Is it OK to smoke pot?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Who is to be the judge of what is “disinformation” and what isn’t? I think I would rather have to deal with the occasional fake news than to have the government shut down whole political views. After all, we have a lot of experience with the former and many (possibly most) of us have learned to ignore it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

People talk about nicotine being addictive, and perhaps it is. But it seems to me the habit itself is what’s addicting, not the nicotine.

I smoked for years and years, and quite a lot. Then one day I got the flu and it was painful to smoke, so I didn’t that day or the next. I then just decided the heck with it and never smoked again. I had not a single symptom I could identify as “withdrawal”. But the movements and the act of smoking itself? Oh yes. Very addicting. Lighting up, watching the smoke, blowing rings. All of that stuff is addictive.