alt Hacker NewsI'd call it unhealthy skepticism. Someone who is operating at the level where they might have blindly trusted what the WHO says does not need a push that merely makes them more skeptical of the WHO while remaining hopelessly non-skeptical of all the other manipulators sending narratives their way.
Replies
dpark • yesterday at 7:24 PM
> while remaining hopelessly non-skeptical of all the other manipulators
You insist on assuming based on a one-line comment that the person is a gullible sheeple. And maybe they are, but I fail to see how you have established this.
➕ show 1 reply
It's healthy to remain sceptical of all information, pointing out a very widely blindly trusted organisation has serious problems which means this trust and faith placed in it is blind is NOT "an enemy of my enemy" situation.
That leads to sectarianism.
The WHO can both simultaneously be responsible for many good things and have very bad leadership doing more harm than good in other areas. But pointing out that dichotomy of the truth is beyond the conversational chattering class I fear.