Clickbait typically refers to the practice of writing sensationalized or misleading headlines in order to attract clicks on a piece of content. It often relies on exaggerating claims or leaving out key information in order to encourage traffic. The term is generally used in a dismissive sense. [Google search]
There is probably no greater case of TDS than that of Sam Harris, but according to your metric of agreeing with Trumpâs positions (MAGA is a totally pointless addition, that means nothing), Harris is a Trump MAGA supporter. Here is Harris,
âI probably agree with most of Trumpâs politics in fact. Do I think we should have a secure border? Absolutely. Do I think we should be harder on China? Yes. Do I think that much of the left is in the grip of an insane moral panic? I do. Do I think the phrase, âDefund the policeâ, is one of the stupidest ever uttered? Of course. Do I recognize that globalization has produced many casualties in our society? Yes. Am I in favor of onshoring much of our supply chain and energy infrastructure? Yes, I am. Am I appropriately humbled by our misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq and now skeptical of our ability to do anything like nation-building? Absolutely. All of this significantly overlaps with Trumpâs policies and with the political concerns of his supporters.â
[@Tim calms down a bit from laughing so hard.]
He then remembers all the âshameless partisan piffleâ @Sam has spouted in defense of Covid conspiracy theories, climate denial, ID Creationism, and other Rightwing Wingnut Inanity/Insanity.
[@Tim wanders away laughing his arse off.]
And I thought I had evidence of Fauci contradicting himself.
Climate denial. Best dust off that crystal ball.
The only âTrump Derangementâ here is that of Trump himself, his lawyers (and their often derangedly-flimsy arguments in his defense) and his, often homicidally, deranged followers â an 6 Jan, their death-threats against Democrats, Judges, Prosecutors, Grand Jury members, election workers, et cetera ad infinitum.
Even if this was clearly so (which, given that it is hidden under the debris of frothy bullsit clickbait, it is not), why should we care if Fauci is not in fact the only person in the entire history of the planet who has not contradicted himself at some stage? 
Given the ever-increasing record temperatures, and the rapid rate that glaciers are disappearing, no âcrystal ballâ is needed â weâre witnessing it in real time.
And you claim me a Trump supporter on evidence? I just told you that I despise him. I have since before he won the nomination. Before that I knew he was on the apprentice which was almost in itself enough to despise him.
But sure. According to another crazed peaceful scientist Iâm MAGA Trump.
Sure, but youâve concluded me of participating in climate denial why? Again, evidence âŚ
You losing your reliance upon evidence?
I never âclaim[ed you] a Trump supporterâ at all â merely a fellow traveler who it parroting the same witless drivel that has been made famous by the Gilded Whore of Mara Lago.
Because of your trolling in defense of a fellow Climate-troll:
Really?
That was clearly saying that you could be a fascist, and despise (and therefore not be a âsupporterâ of) famous fascists.
For the sake of clarity: I do not despise you because I think you like Trump, but because I think you are like Trump (in terms of the vacuous positions you espouse).
Seriously, I want to make sure I understand what is going on here. Is it actually really important to you exactly how many times Anthony Fouci has been in the media in the last four years? Why?
Clearly nobody could truly care about any facts if they didnât truly go to the trouble and count when suggesting offhandedly that it is in the 200 range.
Is that seriously your argument here?
Wait, youâre not serious then? You donât actually care what the real number is. The matter at stake is that I didnât know when I suggested it was 200. This has got your knickers in a twist?
Are you in fact okay? Do we need to call someone?
Okay so you donât care about the real number. It was that I just loosely estimated his number of media appearances in four years to be about 200, without checking, that has you worked up.
Thatâs a strong gotcha you have there mate. I can see why Bechly wouldnât want to come here. Whatâs next, Iâm going to throw around loose estimates for the number of people in the world, or the number of hairs on my head, without actually counting or looking it up? Can anyone here be trusted?
I would also note that it is more than a year since Fauci stepped down from his government position, and yet Covid conspiracy theorists are still fixated on the least flaw or contradiction they can find (or manufacture) in his statements.
not likely.
- Sam Harris is like Trump in the positions he espouses.
Evidence: Do you remember evidence? I quoted Harris. Again, he said, âI probably agree with most of Trumpâs politics in fact." and again, "All of this significantly overlaps with Trumpâs policies and with the political concerns of his supporters.â
Could you contradict yourself more? One moment, Iâm espousing vacuous positions; the next, you claim to have paid no close attention to what Iâve said.
It appears you are triggered by one position I have espoused. A mere factual claim. Specifically, that Fauci contradicted himself, saying recently, âI wasnât leaning totally strongly one way or the other.â and on at least one other occasion, âWhat I do feel strongly about is that this was a spillover from an animal species to a human.â
Somehow this (what Iâve actually espoused) has got under your skin and totally triggered you.
It probably contributes to your despising of me that Iâm a Christian.
You though that, but do you in fact have that? I asked about the context of the clips from the video you linked. You havenât answered. I mean a fact oriented guy like you wouldnât be jumping to conclusions would you?
I couldnât help but notice you completely ignored that part of my post and chose instead to drill down hard on a number you didnât even care about in the end, being entirely obsessed with the apparent contradiction. But are you actually interested in whether it is a contradiction?
As I have said, one is enough to make a contradiction.
It wouldnât take a lot for him, to be simply honest.
Sure, Iâm fine with your estimate. So if it is anywhere close to accurate he has probably stated tens of times in the past something similar to, âWhat I do feel strongly about is that this was a spillover from an
animal species to a human.â He is getting older, but is it likely that he forgets saying this? But letâs assume that he did (if that is what suits your purposes), what leads him to now say, " I wasnât leaning totally strongly one way or the other."
It is as Bret Weinstein says,
"âMany media outlets, news organizations, so-called âfact checkers,â social media platforms and thousands of individual people. All those who made this point that the lab leak was a possibility, were portrayed as conspiracy theorists. Then suddenly for no reason â there was no change at all in the evidence â but suddenly upon the publication of Nicholas Wadeâs piece the tide turned and suddenly it became possible for anyone to discuss this hypothesis out loud without being demonized. Which I found bewildering. Literally nothing new had emerged, it was just another presentation, there had been many prior presentations that had gone through the evidence, but suddenly it was like somebody had given people the green light to think for themselves.â
AFAIK, Harris neither supports Trumpâs (and your) vacuous positions on Covid nor Climate denial. So this is another red herring.
I donât have to pay âcloseâ attention to discern that (i) you posted vacuous clickbait, and (ii) crowed vacuously when nobody seemed particularly impressed by it. Did your quoting Allen on Trump and bringing up the red herring of âTDSâ make your point any less vacuous? No â so the fact that I overlooked it isnât relevant.
Hard like this, ?
A mere âIt was just an estimate.â from you would have sufficed. But ok, itâs my fault for asking you where the number came from.
It will be unfortunate, for sure, as it always is if the news as reported is incorrect. My comments are, of course, assuming that the reporting is true.
Have you reason to expect that Fauci didnât espouse the one position for years and has just uttered the " I wasnât leaning totally strongly one way or the other" in the last week or two, and if so, what is your reason?
As the Bret Weinstein piece alludes to the truth is painfully slow in coming out. Who do you think is behind it? Why is the issue partisan?