"Pretending fascism and authoritarian socialism are equally compatible with conservative politicians today is ahistorical."

Oh, mother! Yes, for you it'd be like remarking to the late Ian Paisley, "Gee, your religion is so similar to Catholicism, why don't you just be friends?". Like the hydra, they are both heads of the same monster, and these days both Russia and China have moved closer to the Nazi model of socialism. Sadly, I don't think that socialism will make the great contribution to civilisation of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam, although it's a clear winner for destroying nations and killing people.

"What you’ve experienced is disagreement."

Let me see. Verballing: Making a false statement as a basis for making false accusations.

So I liken the net zero model to Germania on the basis of it being grandiose, extravagant, and never likely to be built. Further, I suggest that unlike Germania, the net zero model is kept secret to avoid public scrutiny. You insisted the CSIRO to be completely transparent (despite the CSIRO's admission that they weren't), misquoted me (that's lying), then used the misquotes to infer that I was calling people delusional Nazis and CSIRO employees megalomaniacs (which is dishonest). The conclusion I drew from your conduct was of you being a psychopathic lunatic, a view which has only been reinforced by discussions you've had with others on OLO.

Fester,

Your Paisley comparison proves my point. He was fiercely opposed to Catholicism despite their shared religious heritage - not because they were indistinguishable, but because ideological factions often define themselves in opposition to even minor differences.

So thank you for reinforcing the idea that "both sides being authoritarian" doesn’t mean they’re interchangeable or aligned.

//…these days both Russia and China have moved closer to the Nazi model of socialism.//

The Nazis didn't have a model of socialism. Neither do Russia or China anymore.

//So I liken the net zero model to Germania on the basis of it being grandiose, extravagant, and never likely to be built.//

Right, and that was your analogy - not mine. I responded to your comparison, directly quoting you, linking to your original post, and asking whether the implied parallels to Nazi hubris were really appropriate. That’s scrutiny, not misrepresentation.

//Further, I suggest that unlike Germania, the net zero model is kept secret to avoid public scrutiny.//

Which is still wrong.

I explained, with sources, how the CSIRO’s GenCost report is publicly available, updated annually, and includes its assumptions and costings. You ignored that, and instead called it "secretive" - a claim contradicted by its own publication history.

//You insisted the CSIRO to be completely transparent (despite the CSIRO's admission that they weren't)...//

No, I didn't. I said:

"The CSIRO responded to criticisms by adding explanatory material in later editions. That’s transparency in action, not the absence of it."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10653#372056

//…misquoted me (that's lying)...//

No, I paraphased you - once:

"Citing Hitler was about efficiency"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10653#371999

It was a shorthand summary of what you’d just said:

"I felt that it was an efficient way of pointing out the details that the CSIRO was not sharing."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10653#371997

That’s not "verballing," it’s condensing. And I even kept the "efficiency" language you used. If you felt that distorted your meaning, the fair response was to clarify, which you did - and I took note.

Nice try, but no cigar.

""As I pointed out, none of the examples you gave turned out to be established facts."

Still missing, or avoiding (?) the point, JD.

Just because they aren't proven as indisputable facts according to your criteria, doesn't mean they're disinformation.

But they were considered disinformation in the past and the data suppressed. Now they aren't disinformation and they aren't suppressed. But irreparable damage was done during the time they were suppressed with lives lost, careers destroyed and people cancelled.

You're trying to sail past those facts by claiming what was once disinformation remains disinformation until proven 110% factual. Its dishonest and disingenuous and oh so very JD.

No, I'm still not missing the point, mhaze.

You have now shifted the goalposts from your original claim, so obviously you're aware of that too.

//Just because they aren't proven as indisputable facts according to your criteria, doesn't mean they're disinformation...

Correct - but that’s not what I said.

I never claimed a thing must be 110% disproven to be labelled disinformation. I said your examples were either:

- Still unproven,
- Still misleading in implication, or
- Never verified in the first place, yet promoted as settled truth.

That’s what separates legitimate dissent from disinformation - not whether something is unpopular, but whether it's asserted with false certainty, presented misleadingly, or deliberately spread despite contrary evidence.

//But they were considered disinformation in the past and the data suppressed.//

You’ve asserted this, but not demonstrated it.

Which example from your list:

- Was officially suppressed by a government agency?
- Was later vindicated as wholly true, not just "somewhat plausible"?
- Was classified as disinformation by a credible authority (not just flagged by a private platform)?

If you can't name even one that meets all three, your case collapses. Repeating that "they were suppressed!" doesn’t make it true.

//Irreparable damage was done... lives lost, careers destroyed and people cancelled.//

That’s a sweeping claim with no evidence offered.

Were there overreaches during COVID? Certainly. Were some people silenced who shouldn't have been? Possibly. But that doesn’t prove that everything flagged as disinformation was true - or that your examples were wrongly suppressed.

Again, name names. Link cases. You’re making claims of historic scale and moral gravity - yet refusing to back them.

//You're trying to sail past those facts by claiming what was once disinformation remains disinformation until proven 110% factual.//

No - I’m pointing out that you are labelling as "vindicated" things that were never proven, often still misleading, and at best speculative.

That’s what’s dishonest and disingenuous - and oh so very mhaze.

You love grok.

Grok this... http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_484f1429-7e08-4b7a-a74c-0ce03d720bcc

I couldn't be bothered going over it all again only to get one of your 'I don't want it to be true, therefore its not' responses.

You say you get it then write..."Was later vindicated as wholly true, not just "somewhat plausible"?"

"Somewhat plausible" doesn't equal disinformation. You don't get it and don't get the tenets of free speech for that matter.

You've painted yourself into so many corners I think you must be living in a dodecagon.

mhaze,

You’re still flattening the distinction between plausibility, proof, and suppression - and banking on that blur to keep your narrative afloat.

Let’s be clear:

Plausible =/= Proven =/= Suppressed

The fact that a theory is plausible now doesn’t mean it was ever proven. And even if it was prematurely flagged or mischaracterised, that doesn’t mean it was censored by force or deliberately hidden by some coordinated regime.

You’ve now shifted your claim from "these were wrongly suppressed" to "they’re plausible, so they were never disinformation." That’s revisionism.

Take the lab leak theory - yes, it was flagged at times, especially when presented as settled fact with zero evidence and surrounded by conspiratorial language. But the topic itself was never banned. Plenty of mainstream outlets discussed it. Scientists debated it. The issue was with how it was framed - as certainty, not hypothesis.

That applies to most of your list. Many of the ideas you point to were flagged not for being unpopular, but for being spread with false certainty, misleading implications, or in defiance of available evidence. That’s what moderation tries to address - imperfectly, yes, but not tyrannically.

Your Grok chat even shows that.

Sure, it notes examples where things were flagged too early or clumsily - and I’ve said myself that we can acknowledge overreach. But most of what you listed remains unverified, exaggerated, or still under scientific and legal scrutiny. "Somewhat plausible" doesn’t retroactively justify promoting those ideas as fact - or claiming their moderation caused "irreparable damage."

That’s a leap. And it’s not a principled argument - it’s a rhetorical sleight of hand.

So again, you’ve made sweeping claims. I’ve asked for specifics. You haven’t provided any. Repeating "they were plausible!" doesn’t prove suppression - it just proves you’re betting the audience won’t notice the shift.

By the way, I hate Grok. Musk is really stuffing it up - hence all the controversial claims it's made which they've had to backtrack on and apologise for.

I only use it to expose your dishonestly because it's right-leaning.