Prozac

FWIW, MSNBC (especially it’s editorial/entertainment content) is about as credible as FOX News. Which is to say, mostly full of shit meant to keep people outraged and tuning in. Neither extreme should be painted as “credible” or even remotely serious.

The AF has been in deep shit for a while. They just had a COVID induced loss of sensory information and haven’t been able to smell it for the last year and a half.

While I agree the use of the term “berthing people” is odd and a bit ridiculous, a government agency using gender neutral language is hardly the same thing as a medical professor apologizing for implying only females can give birth, which, I do not believe actually happened. We’ve drifted the thread pretty far here, so let me restate my point: There are myriad actors out there putting out misinformation and downright lies. Their motivations are varied but said motivations don’t generally involve what’s best for you, your health, or the continued existence of American exceptionalism. I find it curious that so many conservatives who lament the lack of critical thinking in modern America are quick to believe just about anything posted on the internet that fits their tribe’s narrative.

The reference is for some lady’s blog. Hardly an authoritative source. But if you’re so insistent that I should be the one to prove the story is wrong, I’ll admit, I have none. Now you can answer my question. Where’s YOUR proof that your mother is not a hermaphrodite? I will accept a long form birth certificate and/or pics (preferably both).

Jesus! It’s on the fucking writer making the allegations to provide proof. Are we living in fucking bizarro world now? Your mom is a hermaphrodite. Where’s your proof that it’s bogus?

Again, it’s on the internet so it must be true right? I see that dailywire, rebel news, and a couple other alternative “journalism” sites are carrying this story. The professor is not named, nor is the university other than that it was in the UC system (crazy Californians, amirite?). Sorry, but I call bullshit on this one. Simply another case of media creating something out of nothing to keep you engaged in the culture wars.

I'm sorry to hear that your wife is experiencing negative side effects that may be a result of vaccination. The good news is that these side effects are rare, and more pointedly for your wife, seem to last only one or two cycles: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/can-covid-19-vaccines-affect-periods#How-long-do-these-changes-last? https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/covid-19-vaccines-periods-menstrual/

Some of you guys take analogies way too literally. Regardless, lets go with your example. Lets say it's not a busy street. Lets say it's an extremely desolate street with one vehicle going by every hour. You're still going to look both ways before crossing because it's an easy and prudent thing to do.

Don’t want to give anything away for those waiting for the prime time broadcast, but women’s gymnastics will definitely be worth a watch tonight.

Agree with Pawnman: it depends. For a small number of people, vaccination doesn’t make sense for a variety of medical or other reasons. For the vast majority of us though, that’s like asking if someone’s decision to forgo looking both ways before crossing the street should be respected. Is it a personal decision? Well, I suppose it is, but if you’re hit by a car and killed you’re going to cause all kinds of problems beyond your own unnecessary death. Traffic will be snarled for hours. You have damaged someone’s vehicle and potentially injured them, etc. So I really, REALLY want you to look both ways before crossing the street & have a hard time “respecting” your personal decision not to. Some data to ponder: Roughly 35M people have contracted COVID-19 in the US so far. About 612K have died as a result of COVID-19 infection. About 340M doses of vaccine have been administered to 187M people in our country. VAERS data indicates roughly 6200 died after receiving the vaccine, however that doesn’t mean they necessarily died as a direct result of vaccination. The latest data I can find indicates that three people have died directly as a result of blood clot issues caused by the J&J vaccine. To recap: 612K dead out of 35M who contracted COVID. Three dead out of 187M vaccinated. You may dispute those numbers on the margins but that does not change the calculus here. Refusing to get the vaccine is akin to refusing to look both ways before crossing a busy street. It’s a stupid and disruptive decision.

Brash? On the internets? Say it ain’t so! I don’t necessarily disagree with you man. I just think that we can just as easily get into China’s head on this one. If they think there’s even a chance that we might intervene it might be enough to deter them from acting. Enjoy your dinner…..just finished mine and am currently tipping back a couple. Cheers! 🍻

Why are we so quick to let China set that particular narrative? Shouldn’t it be more like: China is not about ready to invade Taiwan because the USA, upon which their economy is absolutely dependent, has publicly committed to the defense of the island? Your argument is a good one, but it goes both ways.

Not remotely what I said. Side effects are very real. They are also very rare. There are actors that want you to be hesitant to get a vaccine because it furthers their goals, not yours, and certainly not ours collectively as a nation.

If it’s on the internet it must be true right? Not suggesting there aren’t real people who have had reactions (even severe ones) to vaccinations. There is literally no barrier to someone creating a website like this though, and it appears that there are indeed at least several more. The implication of this site and those like it is that the vaccines are less safe than advertised and that the “authorities” are hiding data from you. There are numerous actors that are benefiting greatly from the discord that is caused in the US by sites like these. Have you considered that it might be you who is being played by influencers who want to harm your country? Not a pleasant thought, I know, but sometimes we need to accept unpleasant feedback. I’m sure I will be counter-accused of the same thing. Fine, but ask yourself this: Why are you willing to accept data, theories, and opinions from non qualified commenters on the internet but not the known and accepted expertise of YOUR OWN government health agencies? Imperfect as we may be (and have always been), we are still the greatest nation on earth. This “American government is failing and untrustworthy” attitude is pure poison being injected by our enemies to great effect as of late.

Hong Kong is a completely different proposition than Taiwan. Much smaller, attached to the mainland, and without any military capability at all. The territory was willingly signed over to the PRC in 1997. Taiwan is a part of mainland China only in the loosest sense and is willing to and capable of fiercely defending their democracy. If you fly into Shenzhen and then into Taipei, you will be amazed by the difference in professionalism, efficiency, and general attitude between the two. Taiwan is lightyears ahead of the PRC in pretty much every category other than sheer population size. Could Beijing turn that numerical superiority into a victory in the Taiwan Strait? Probably, but Taipei would make that victory very difficult and very, very costly. Xi’s ego may eventually get the better of him but if he looks at the issue dispassionately, I don’t think a Taiwan invasion makes any sense at all.

Jesus people. The Trump administration, for all of its faults, knew that the way to get back to something approaching “normal” was heard immunity, and that the fastest way to get there is through vaccination. Hence ‘Operation Warp Speed’ which, to give credit where credit is due, was an unqualified success. No, not “everyone” needs to get vaccinated. Seventy percent or so will do. When you have half of a population unvaccinated it leaves plenty of room for a virus to mutate. Hence Delta and probably Echo and Foxtrot and so on until we have heard immunity. We can wait a few years for that to happen naturally or we can all get a shot and watch this thing disappear within a few months. It’s not a fucking difficult concept to grasp.

Turn off the Newsmax.

Do you think he lied with malicious intent or perhaps as a calculated strategy to protect access to PPE to those that needed it most? Do you believe that a coordinated response can change and evolve over time as the nature of the threat becomes more clear? If Fauci was replaced with someone else do you believe they would be telling you something different? What if we were still under the previous administration? Who would you believe at this point? I am not trying to argue that our response has been, or is perfect. Regardless, the CDC, the NIH, and the US Surgeon General continue to be the world standard when it comes to understanding and fighting infectious disease. Would you rather go with the Russian narrative? The Chinese one? Random dude on YouTube with no credentials? BTW thanks for qualifying your GFY statement although I wouldn’t have been offended either way. I hear much worse from the frau on a daily basis! 🍻

Correct. However, the repercussions of those statements (I.e. trampling deaths) can still be prosecuted under other statutes and laws.

Agree that subduing or blocking speech is unconstitutional wrt skepticism (But still not convinced that this is what’s going on). For example, stating that there could be unforeseen consequences is protected. Definitively stating that vaccination causes infertility is not. This is what I was relating to yelling fire in a theater and it’s the kind of thing that’s absolutely going on on these platforms.

I’ve read three different briefs on Norwood now. Still not making the connection. Not a lawyer either so maybe I lack the legal vocabulary to understand how the case applies here. Regardless, my point remains. The government has not blocked anything. The WH’s position is that social media should not be a conduit for untruths that endanger public health. I’m inclined to agree.

“the problem isn't with "voicing opinions" - the problem is when the government induces, encourages, or promotes action or policy out of a private entity that would be otherwise illegal for them to do.” This is where I get confused with your argument. Are you stating that it would be “otherwise illegal” for Facebook to block or suppress (or promote for that matter) content on its platform? My argument from another angle: Much of the speech we are talking about could be considered to be in a very grey area in the first place. In the classic example if I yell fire in a theater when none exists, as the first amendment gives me the right to do, I may still be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter after deaths occur in the ensuing stampede. The same argument holds true if someone states that a vaccine causes infertility (when it does not), thus causing large numbers of people to forgo vaccination leading to preventable deaths. If the theater owner knowingly invited the fire yeller in, he will likely be held complicit in the deaths that occurred. The government views Facebook in the same light at the moment.

Nope. If you think Facebook is public space, you are wrong. Period.

I’m failing to understand how that case applies to this argument. From some light surface research, it appears that case has to do with the 14th amendment and that the court explicitly said that the state of Mississippi did not violate the first amendment. As far as individual lawmakers voicing their opinions, I agree that they can be problematic, but I think it’s a stretch that a single statement by a single lawmaker represents the view of the entire federal government. Example: Marjorie Taylor Green makes statements all the time that are pretty far from mainstream. Most don’t attribute here views to the whole of government. I will ask you this: We’re you as concerned about government overreach wrt the first Amendment when the then POTUS very publicly and explicitly stated that he wanted to change the libel laws to make it easier to sue/silence journalists who were critical of him? I really don’t remember too many on the right who waved the flag at this very overt threat that emanated from the very highest level of the government.

This is a more coherent argument. Look guys, if the argument is that Feinstein’s and Psaki’s statements could be construed as problematic and raise some questions about potential government overreach that should be answered” I’d say I AGREE! But that’s not the argument being pushed here. The argument is “the government is censoring social media”, to which I say: No, it is not. It’s another example of the right taking a legitimate issue and attempting to twist it into an existential threat that will end society as we know it in order to keep the base energized.