Why 5 years? Why not 1? Why not 50? What's so special to people about 5 years? I keep hearing people say "it hasn't been tested long enough" followed by "I'd take it in about 5 to 10 years" which is a HUGE difference. Is it just that "time has passed", because a year has passed since the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was first given to test subjects. But I guess it's up to people - their body, their choice.
Even though we live in what is commonly referred to as a "society". We agree to live by certain rules and norms that allow us to coexist. There is a faction of fools out there who resist being a part of society, but claim all of its privileges. These are sub-human individuals who just seek some form of control over others. That has to stop.
> This is hate speech, especially considering the disproportionate rates of black and hispanic people who are unvaccinated.
It is not. Black & hispanic people are vaccinated at lower rates than white people mostly due to access issues, not refusal to get the vaccine. One of those access issues is, in fact, that they are disproportionately members of a part of society we've demanded to take a lot of risk: essential workers.
There are reports of Lee, or one of his contacts, offering admin roles for money basically to allow for paid harassment. Whether that is true or not isn't clear to me, but that would be a big issue if true.
Some people really don't like Trump, myself included. Some people find opportunity to stick it to him - so what? I find it funny that a man who so values his notoriety is then defended for his notoriety by those same people who value that man. There are so many walking contradictions in folks who "admire" Trump.
I pointed out if you want to have a real conversation on value that you don’t start by offending 50 percent of the population. Somehow you took I support trump out of that …
Censorship, by a company? On their own platform? How is that possible? As far as I know, only government cannot abridge your right to speech. A platform, like a store, has the right to remove those that use their platform to promote speech counter to the owner of the platform.
Time to burn some karma to debunk some popular incorrect understandings.
Censorship, by a company? On their own platform? How is that possible?
It happens all the time.
As far as I know, only government cannot abridge your right to speech.
False. Marsh v. Alabama. A company owning a company town, owning the roads and sidewalks, can't use the power of their property rights to abridge your right of speech. Read the ruling and do the math: A private company absolutely can abridge someone's free speech!
It's mainly the case that US laws cover the circumstance of the government abridging your speech. However, it's common sense that powerful entities, like mega-corporations, can also squelch a person's speech. Sometimes this is also illegal, though not always. This is clear in US case law.
You've been lied to about this, basically, by people with an ideological axe to grind. (Probably unintentionally through wishful thinking.)
A platform, like a store, has the right to remove those that use their platform to promote speech counter to the owner of the platform.
If the platform is doing that straight-up, explicitly, then sure, they can do that. They can put political affiliation right in their Terms of Service. However, if they are accomplishing this as a bait and switch, saying they're doing one thing, then doing another, then that's clearly not right.
If people are engaged in interstate commerce while colluding between companies to do this, then maybe this should fall under RICO. I hope so, anyhow.
So then these media platforms are in collusion AND own the internet? I'm not one to throw foil ball hats around because I have plenty of my own but your security systems must be awesome.
So, in the 1980s...any dick or joe could walk off the street and demand air time on NBC nightly news?
Because, the platforms given to people today expand the voice/reach of everyday citizens unlike anything in history, but with great power comes great responsibility.
I can tweet something that could become a "meme" or reach a lot of people as an everyday citizen, it's more rare for a non-blue-checkmark account, but it's possible. I've had reddit posts with > 2k upvotes...
Show me how any of this platform/reach was accessible in the 1980's, this is progress and it's also grey murky waters. People should absolutely NOT be allowed to share stuff that is just propaganda and without facts/statistics.
I saw a funny meme the other day that said basically: Stop trying to use stats and facts to argue with "liberals", those don't work anymore they're all doctored by the left... or maybe just maybe -- there aren't facts and stats that support a world-view that's so out of touch with reality the numbers can't even be slightly fubared to appear reasonable.
How do you maintain wage and standard of living differentials with the rest of the world when transportation is as cheap as it currently is without a productivity gap, tariffs, or a carbon tax (increasing transportation cost) to make local manufacturing more attractive?
Besides, there are big strategic reasons to maintain a strong domestic aerospace industry, even if it increases costs in the short run.
If you do that, don’t you have to essentially export money? Which can then be used by your counterparties to buy up your nation’s productive assets, and diminish the effective savings of your populace via asset inflation?
Also, aggregate wealth of a nation isn’t the only thing we should be targeting. You can increase the overall wealth while simultaneously demolishing the wealth of the large portion of your populace involved in domestic manufacturing.
Can you explain this a bit more? If there's a tariff on a component, wouldn't the buyer look for cheaper domestic replacements? So maybe a mix of both -- they pay more in the short term, but it gives domestic suppliers a better chance to win the business over the long term?
Did you read the article? The point of the study is to say that statistically this doesn't add up. Well, Covid is a once in every 100 years pandemic. Heart disease, influenza, and pneumonia occur every year. Trying to use statistical analysis is the wrong approach. To those who think this is your proof that covid was overblown, you haven't read the article.
In case you're serious: yes I have read the article.
Of course a one off non-peer reviewed piece isn't proof of anything but it does reference interesting data.
Heart disease, influenza, and pneumonia really are things that kill every year, so why don't you think they can be statistically analyzed? This year is different than previous years, but it seems odd if you're suggesting Covid is beneficial for heart disease.
Why is it suspect? When someone dies of influenza in a year, but has heart disease, do we say they died of heart disease or influenza? I suspect influenza is the cause of death. Statistically, over the past 100 years we haven't HAD a pandemic, but wow here we are with one and everyone is fast to say "ignore the covid numbers, the real data is heart disease because it's been that way forever." Well, forever just got pushed outta the way.
I understand that cause of death is multivariable, like the complicated reduction in life expectancy due to poor habits, city smog, individual effects of smoking, etc. But if a person has heart disease and influenza on the table, shouldn't they statistically be worse off if covid might be in the mix as well? Regardless of which is written on the death certificate, the amount of supposed deaths 'caused' by covid even by minimal estimates should be significantly larger than the margin of error on death records we have. Total deaths per year ( including absolutely everything) 'only' totals 3 million which means 200k covid deaths is already 7% of that.
the reported differences are interesting no matter how you cut it, either covid isn't as bad, or it is bad and people aren't dying of certain other causes. Alternatively the US really sucks at counting.
