zlacker

>>themgt+(OP)
I've never heard of "commonsense.news" before, but it is by Bari Weiss[0] who is trying to create an "anti-cancel culture," "anti-woke" University called the University of Austin[1]. Her Wikipedia on her history kind of speaks for itself, in particular the "2017–2020" section[0].

Why does this matter? Because most of the articles claims are based on "spoke to us" quotes from anonymous staffers which cannot be independently verified. So it falls to the reputation of those publishing and their journalistic integrity/process, and at that point I leave it to you to make up your own mind.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss#2017%E2%80%932020:_...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Austin

>>Someon+87
One could uncharitably rephrase your argument as "this woman is a witch and any article on this witch's site is heretical".

There are a lot of valid scientific reasons to criticize the CDC's approach to the COVID pandemic, including their own publications[1]. One could also point to the different paths taken by other OECD nations with respect to children and see that the CDC diverged sharply, but presented no data to justify those policies.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/eis/field-epi-manual/chapters/Communicat...

>>ch4s3+sT
that would indeed be uncharitable because witches don't exist

if you replace witch with "unreliable source", a thing that does exist, it would be a more intellectually honest rephrasing

>>ImPost+hB1
I'm using it as a stand in for disfavored woman in society. I don't always or even generally agree with her, but there are some valid critiques of the CDC in the article, and that has nothing to do with anything she has or has not said in other places.

>>ch4s3+Ya2
> I'm using it as a stand in for disfavored woman in society.

if you used it as a stand-in for "unreliable source", it would be a more intellectually honest rephrasing, as that is the actual objection here, and your attempt to reframe an unreliable source as "oh people just disfavor them" obviously disregards their unreliability, as well as ignores why the source is disfavored (because it is not reliable)

>>ImPost+Pb2
Most of the objection flowed from a snippet on Wikipedia about a tweet where she reposted an article by Glen Greenwald, that’s mostly stripped of context. She was arguing against vaccines, and to make that claim is unserious. So what’s really left? You don’t like her opinions on foreign policy? Me either, but that isn’t relevant.

>>ch4s3+Tm2
> Most of the objection flowed from a snippet on Wikipedia about a tweet where she reposted an article by Glen Greenwald, that’s mostly stripped of context.

no, it didn't. most of the objection flowed from the lack of reliability of the source.

>>ImPost+Fq2
Th comment I was replying to[1] cites this[2] wikipedia section that is irrelevant to the topic and further comments in the thread mention the Glen Greenwald tweet. But, she didn't write the article wasn't written by her, but rather Marty Makary M.D., M.P.H. and Tracy Beth Høeg M.D., Ph.D. Dr. Makary. The source is on background, but that's typical for government agency sources who aren't whistle blowers. Any professor of medicine at Hopkins definitely knows people at the CDC, as many people from the Hopkins MPH program end up there.

Criticizing the meat of the article is fine, or pointing out a particular ax the author might have to grind is valid too. I'm taking issue with the criticism that Bair Weiss is a bad woman therefore anything on her site is fake news.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32100018

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss#2017%E2%80%932020:_...