Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Moof1904

macrumors 65816
May 20, 2004
1,053
87
How dare Jim Jordan and his misguided cronies question our technocrat overlords when they say they know what’s best for us? There’s no room in medicine or science for second opinions and debate.

Words hurt. And words can scare us. We must be protected from scary words.

Like the scary words from 45 randomized controlled studies showing ivermectin’s benefits in early treatment, late treatment, and prevention of COVID. The same ivermectin that is on the WHO’s list of essential medications and that has been administered over four billion times. Thankfully, testimony from hundreds of physicians who used ivermectin to save the lives of COVID patients never reached our ears because we might have been confused or upset by the news that rushing our loved ones to the hospital so that they could be left to die on a ventilator might not be the best option.

And we needed to be spared even more scary words, directly from Pfizer’s mouth, that the COVID vaccine was never designed to reduce the risk of infection, reduce the risk of contagion, nor reduce the risk of mortality. Only the authorized narrative from the CDC and the NIH that the vaccines were 100% effective against getting or spreading the virus could be permitted. Nothing pretending to be the truth must blind us to the fact that we must be good citizens and undergo experimental gene therapy for the good of the whole community.

We definitely need to be protected from the fear mongering from scary cardiologists who tried to make up stories about young athletes dropping dead from cardiac events. We need to believe that even though the most cited study on the subject shows it took a period of 38 years to lose 1,100 athletes to sudden death, it’s completely normal now to have lost that many in the past 18 months. When the experts at the CDC say that there’s this mystifying new things called “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome," the cause of which is entirely unknown, we don’t want to be frightened by any suggestions otherwise.

We certainly don’t want to be upset by those who might suggest that the CDC and the FDA, thoroughly infiltrated by Big Pharma, are flawed and deceptive. Clearly the CDC and the FDA know what’s best for us and any voices of dissent must be silenced, for the greater good. We have come to know that the greater good is harmed by dissent.

And because it’s private companies, who now have a stronghold on public discourse and debate, who are censuring us, we’re okay with it because our First Amendment rights are intact. We’ll conveniently ignore that the government by proxy is the driving force behind this censuring.

And, above all, we’ll let party politics further divide us as we are marched lockstep into this new reality where the scientific method gives way to mob rule, where those who question the zeitgeist are crushed, and our every opinion is manipulated and tracked.

For the good of us all, of course.
 

ninethirty

macrumors 68000
Mar 1, 2006
1,541
1,616
Don't get all pedantic on me. You know as well as I do that I was talking about the only available masks, not the N95 masks that even hospital systems couldn't get. But since you need some hand holding, here's some links:

Masks are bad, and the surgeon general is asking people to not buy them (march 2020): https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...r-facemasks-because-of-coronavirus-2020-01-30

Masks made "little or no difference" (feb 2023): https://slate.com/technology/2023/02/masks-effectiveness-cochrane-review.html

And in case you want to see a modern example of a scientific body vilifying someone, there's always this gem: https://grahamhancock.com/hancockg22-saa

Your first link literally confirms what I explained, and funny enough, the phrase "masks are bad," or even the word "bad" isn't found in the article. That's you adding your own feeling to things.

Your second link goes on to explain that there simply haven't been enough high quality studies to make a determination. In the meantime, doctors and scientists do recommend that people wear a mask.

I don't even care to read the third link because you aren't arguing in good faith anyway.
 

ninethirty

macrumors 68000
Mar 1, 2006
1,541
1,616
Did you watch his town hall on CNN? He said:

BIDEN: “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.” — town hall.

Surly being on the left you watch CNN and watch Biden's town hall. Maybe you misremembered what he said. You may be able to find it on youtube.

CDC chief Rochelle Walensky said “vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick.”

Of course later she needed to walk that back it became very clear that vaccine people were both getting sick and spreading covid.

At this point, most of the people dying from covid are vaccinated.

While Biden was certainly wrong when he said it, he did walk it back, and didn't insist on spreading nonsense after having been corrected, like our friends on the right enjoy doing.

Furthermore, prior to Delta, getting the vaccine made you extremely unlikely to catch or spread COVID. Delta messed with everything, and then Omicron messed things up even worse. Until recently, the only vaccine available to us concerned the original version of COVID. By the time the bivalent boosters came out, Omicron had evolved even further at that point to which vaccines didn't help in the way we'd like. They do however significantly reduce a persons chance of ending up in the hospital with a severe situation, and for that we should all be thankful.

"At this point, most of the people dying from covid are vaccinated."

Yeah, that tends to happen when:

A. Millions of unvaccinated (either by choice, or because the vaccine wasn't available) died first.
B. Nearly everyone has antibodies now, either through natural infection or vaccination.

The argument you think you're making (that you're more likely to die if you're vaccinated) is absolute nonsense.
 

G5isAlive

Contributor
Aug 28, 2003
2,654
4,606
Don't get all pedantic on me. You know as well as I do that I was talking about the only available masks, not the N95 masks that even hospital systems couldn't get. But since you need some hand holding, here's some links:

Masks are bad, and the surgeon general is asking people to not buy them (march 2020): https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...r-facemasks-because-of-coronavirus-2020-01-30

Masks made "little or no difference" (feb 2023): https://slate.com/technology/2023/02/masks-effectiveness-cochrane-review.html

And in case you want to see a modern example of a scientific body vilifying someone, there's always this gem: https://grahamhancock.com/hancockg22-saa

Do you actually read past the click bait titles in the links you provide? No one is being pedantic, but you seem to want to change your position on the fly.

If you dive into the articles, they don't support your positions but rather those of the person you are looking down on. Namely health authorities initially held back recommending masks out of supply issues (they did not say they didn't work) and that a definitive study has not been done to demonstrate the degree of efficacy of masking, not that they dont work. But your arguments muddying the water that science hasn't gotten the mask issue right is exactly why in the world ranking of deaths per capita amongst wealthy countries, the US ranks amongst the worst, and Japan, which was wearing masks before the pandemic started, has the lowest number of deaths per capita. But maybe it isn't the masks, maybe we just had an idiot for a leader and people that wanted to believe him out of personal convenience.
 

webkit

macrumors 68030
Jan 14, 2021
2,949
2,558
United States
Fox News has the largest viewership in the country.

Fox News has the highest ratings of the cable news channels because there are more major liberal media choices. Of the "big three" cable news channels, for example, conservatives have Fox News while liberal viewership is split between NSNBC and CNN. All are too biased and help fuel the polarized society we have today.
 

webkit

macrumors 68030
Jan 14, 2021
2,949
2,558
United States
It's always amusing to read these types of threads. Liberals think Democrats are not nearly as bad as Republicans and conservatives think Republicans are not nearly as bad as Democrats and both sides often go to their "safe places" (MSNBC, CNN, NYT, WaPo, Huffpost, etc. for liberals and Fox News, NY Post, Washington Times, National Review, etc. for conservatives) to try to justify their beliefs.

Anyone who thinks one side is significantly worse (or better) than the other is clearly too biased or brainwashed by "their side", and the media can be blamed for a lot of it.
 

VictorTango777

macrumors 6502a
Oct 28, 2017
890
1,626
Curiously, the panel left out Twitter CEO Elon Musk despite the fact that Twitter is one of the most popular social networks.
What does Elon Musk hope to accomplish by pandering to maga republicans? Does he think it will help Tesla sell more electric vehicles and solar panels? It hasn't worked on people such as Marjorie Green, Lauren Boebert or Trump who praise Elon while continuing to spread lies about EVs and renewable energy.

Does Musk think his pandering will reduce the occurrences of road ragers harassing drivers of Tesla and other EVs:

https://www.youtube.com/@WhamBaamTeslacam

If these maga republicans support Musk so much, why aren't they buying and promoting Tesla cars and solar products? They also like to do constant China bashing, but they say nothing about all the business that Tesla does in China, or when Musk praises Chinese auto makers: "They work the hardest and they work the smartest". Do maga republicans not know that Musk is the CEO of Tesla, or do they know it but perform mental gymnastics in order to simultaneously say contradictory things? Are they hoping that Musk will keep putting more Tesla money into Twitter and diverting more of his attention away from Tesla?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Razorpit

ThisBougieLife

Suspended
Jan 21, 2016
3,259
10,662
Northern California
@webkit I'll agree with that in the sense that anyone who thinks that the tactics of one side are significantly different from the other (including the type of media they put out) is kidding themselves. Two sides of the same coin, 100%. (And the two parties, while they may squabble over cultural issues, are not as different as they want you to think they are. They agree where it counts. Often for the worse).

Sometimes, however, it's perfectly fine to take a side on something. Compromise is not always the best option.

The fact is that I agree corporations have too much power over speech. Some people make themselves feel better by saying "they're private companies!" They're enormous corporations that have de facto control over many aspects of society. The fact that they're "private" is part of the problem.
 

ninethirty

macrumors 68000
Mar 1, 2006
1,541
1,616
It's always amusing to read these types of threads. Liberals think Democrats are not nearly as bad as Republicans and conservatives think Republicans are not nearly as bad as Democrats and both sides often go to their "safe places" (MSNBC, CNN, NYT, WaPo, Huffpost, etc. for liberals and Fox News, NY Post, Washington Times, National Review, etc. for conservatives) to try to justify their beliefs.

Anyone who thinks one side is significantly worse (or better) than the other is clearly too biased or brainwashed by "their side", and the media can be blamed for a lot of it.
While I think Democrats are far from perfect, they aren't banning books, pushing dangerous conspiracy theories that have lead to violence and or health/safety concerns, nor are they turning away from democracy in favor of authoritarianism and/or fascism. They aren't fighting to remove the rights of minorities, or prevent equal rights from being attained. They may look down on Republicans, or conservatives for the choices they make, but they aren't holding people responsible for being born the way they are and deeming them less than.

The argument you're making is that basically both parties are the same, and I really don't think that's true.

I don't read or watch CNN or MSNBC, or any major media source. I don't need to justify my beliefs, I form my beliefs based on what is. If something I believe is proven false, I'm more than happy to change my opinion based on that new information and don't see that as a sign of weakness. It's an opportunity to grow.
 

azpekt

macrumors 6502
Jun 27, 2012
307
481
hp, illinois
Your daily reminder that "both sides are bad/I'm not political" just means "I'm right-wing". :rolleyes:

Fox News has the largest viewership in the country. It's amazing that in a nation where narratives like "health care is socialism!" dominate (not that socialism is bad, but Americans think it is), right-wingers are still convinced they're oppressed underdogs just because trans people won't stop existing or their kid might learn about slavery or whatever.

CNN is corporate media, just like MSNBC and Fox. They all want the same thing, fundamentally.
I genuinely wonder how the statement "both sides are bad" makes one right-wing? I've been around the world, yet never saw such political dichotomy, that you need to take part in. I demand my right of not giving a F about them! :)

Is it due to bipartisan nature of politics in US? I.e., due to lack of green, soc-dem, libertarian, christian-dem or any other kind of political party everyone should fall into D or R bucket?

What about someone who feels good for both some R and some D policies? Are they some weird political mutants?

I feel that you either need to be either leftie (which somehow gets attributed to D) - or you're an angry racist Hitler (which is somehow gets attributed to R). No space in between, and you need to buy whole package of rubbish, that comes with affiliation to either R or D.

Sad for the citizens, yet very beneficial for politicians to steer their base wherever they want.
 

bradl

macrumors 603
Jun 16, 2008
5,937
17,430
What does Elon Musk hope to accomplish by pandering to maga republicans? Does he think it will help Tesla sell more electric vehicles and solar panels? It hasn't worked on people such as Marjorie Green, Lauren Boebert or Trump who praise Elon but continue to spread lies about EVs and renewable energy

Does Musk think his pandering will reduce the occurrences of road ragers harassing drivers of Tesla and other EVs:

https://www.youtube.com/@WhamBaamTeslacam

If these maga republicans support Musk so much, why aren't they buying and promoting Tesla cars and solar products? Do they not know that Musk is the CEO of Tesla, or do they know it but perform mental gymnastics in order to simultaneously say contradictory things? Are they hoping that Musk will keep putting more Tesla money into Twitter, and one day stop managing Tesla altogether?

It says less about Elon Musk, and more about the bias that Jordan is showing by not including Twitter among those being subpoenaed. He apparently didn't have an issue with Twitter after Musk bought it, but did before Musk bought it.

Again, it shows the Reds' double standards and hypocrisy towards the matter, along with gaslighting their base, especially in getting them into believing that they are getting any work done.

BL.
 

G5isAlive

Contributor
Aug 28, 2003
2,654
4,606
It's always amusing to read these types of threads. Liberals think Democrats are not nearly as bad as Republicans and conservatives think Republicans are not nearly as bad as Democrats and both sides often go to their "safe places" (MSNBC, CNN, NYT, WaPo, Huffpost, etc. for liberals and Fox News, NY Post, Washington Times, National Review, etc. for conservatives) to try to justify their beliefs.

Anyone who thinks one side is significantly worse (or better) than the other is clearly too biased or brainwashed by "their side", and the media can be blamed for a lot of it.

Let me guess, you are a conservative trying to console yourself over how the Republicans have abandoned any moral compass in the pursuit of power and have ended up with neither. So rather than accept that, you say, both sides are equivalent, i.e. lost. Nope. I can make up my own mind. Like it or not Democrats have an agenda that goes beyond "crush the other guy at all costs."
 

Treq

macrumors 6502a
Apr 23, 2009
970
1,523
Santa Monica, CA
MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NYT, Vice and plethora of left-leaning idiots on Twitter - that's not enough? So called "right wing" has Fox and some dark alleys of Internet like Parler or OAN. Not even close in terms of outreach for minds, craving for hysteria and blaming the "other side", as if there is one.

Politicians fighting for "the People"? Ahaha, wake up dude. They are not your friends.


I mean, I live in heavily dem place/city - and lemme tell you, I'd better have some rep running the show here (and "get nothing done"), as whatever dems are doing is descending into downward spiral of homelessness, **** on the streets, crime through the roof and idiotic pandering to whatever new reason to be "offended" is.
You should check those statistics, because cities run by democrats are far better off than cities run by republicans. And the homeless problem is more due to the lack of social programs like a national healthcare system, the “war on drugs” and so many other things that this country needs to do to get on par with the rest of the developed world but can’t due to the republicans blocking anything that doesn’t profit them or their corporate masters.
Also, not going to grant you the premise that there is a liberal media cabal. There just isn’t. Especially on the Covid misinformation. If there was misinformation by the media that you seem to believe all the liberals watch and believe religiously, why were only the right wingers the ones who were misinformed. I and just about everyone I knew, with the exception of the MAGA nut-jobs, knew the truth right from the beginning that the vaccines only reduce your chance of catching it and if you did catch lessen your chances of dying to almost zero if you did. All of which is absolutely true. I knew that you could catch it and transmit it after being vaccinated. All the “liberals” I know knew that. Why is it that only the MAGA crowd seemed to think different?
 
Last edited:

ninethirty

macrumors 68000
Mar 1, 2006
1,541
1,616
What does Elon Musk hope to accomplish by pandering to maga republicans?

It's the exact same thing as it was with Trump. Both crave attention and adoration. They literally need it. When both realized they weren't going to get it from educated folks, they turned to the rednecks and incels. But you know it's driving them both mad, because they'd never be caught dead hanging out with the people that idolize them. They're disgusted by them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bradl

azpekt

macrumors 6502
Jun 27, 2012
307
481
hp, illinois
You should check those statistics, because cities run by democrats are far better off than cities run by republicans. And the homeless problem is more due to the lack of social programs like a national healthcare system, the “war on drugs” and so many other things that this country needs to do to get on par with the rest of the developed world but can’t due to the republicans blocking anything that doesn’t profit them or their corporate masters.
Wait, aint vast majority of big cities are run by D mayors? Way easier to cherry-pick D city and pit it against small numbers of (sorry for tautology) small R-run city.

If D have all they keys to the kingdom, why SF is such a s**t-hole com - and R-run Fort Worth is lightyears ahead of it?

FWIW, I'd like to see "war on drugs" in SF. Finding fentanyl on a kids playground and rushing your kid to ER (real story) is not an enjoyable experience.

And I agree with you on lack of proper healthcare (akin to NHS in UK) and communal/federal mental institutions (hello, Mr Ronald Reagan) is despicable. Does that make me a left wing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: siri_3005

webkit

macrumors 68030
Jan 14, 2021
2,949
2,558
United States
@webkit I'll agree with that in the sense that anyone who thinks that the tactics of one side are significantly different from the other (including the type of media they put out) is kidding themselves. Two sides of the same coin, 100%. (And the two parties, while they may squabble over cultural issues, are not as different as they want you to think they are. They agree where it counts. Often for the worse).

Sometimes, however, it's perfectly fine to take a side on something. Compromise is not always the best option.

The fact is that I agree corporations have too much power over speech. Some people make themselves feel better by saying "they're private companies!" They're enormous corporations that have de facto control over many aspects of society. The fact that they're "private" is part of the problem.

Agree, and yes it can be fine to take a side on something as compromise may not always be the best solution.
 

webkit

macrumors 68030
Jan 14, 2021
2,949
2,558
United States
While I think Democrats are far from perfect, they aren't banning books, pushing dangerous conspiracy theories that have lead to violence and or health/safety concerns, nor are they turning away from democracy in favor of authoritarianism and/or fascism. They aren't fighting to remove the rights of minorities, or prevent equal rights from being attained. They may look down on Republicans, or conservatives for the choices they make, but they aren't holding people responsible for being born the way they are and deeming them less than.

There are plenty of articles and news reports out there showing that BOTH sides having engaged in book banning, pushing conspiracy theories, etc.



The argument you're making is that basically both parties are the same, and I really don't think that's true.

No. The argument I was making is that one side isn't significantly worse (or better) than the other. Obviously, there are differences (as there should be) which is a reason why we have two major parties. My specific comment was, "Anyone who thinks one side is significantly worse (or better) than the other is clearly too biased or brainwashed by "their side", and the media can be blamed for a lot of it."



If something I believe is proven false, I'm more than happy to change my opinion based on that new information and don't see that as a sign of weakness. It's an opportunity to grow.

Unfortunately, not nearly enough people feel and behave that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: azpekt

webkit

macrumors 68030
Jan 14, 2021
2,949
2,558
United States
Let me guess, you are a conservative trying to console yourself over how the Republicans have abandoned any moral compass in the pursuit of power and have ended up with neither. So rather than accept that, you say, both sides are equivalent, i.e. lost. Nope. I can make up my own mind. Like it or not Democrats have an agenda that goes beyond "crush the other guy at all costs."

Your guess would be incorrect.
 

G5isAlive

Contributor
Aug 28, 2003
2,654
4,606
Your guess would be incorrect.
chuckles. easy to say without any supporting evidence As it is, me thinketh though do protesteth too much, in a minimal fashion of course. But you will likely say what I think doesn't matter, and you just might be right.

Regardless, I stand by one party has an agenda to advance the country, one party just craves power. They are not equivalent.
 

G5isAlive

Contributor
Aug 28, 2003
2,654
4,606
There are plenty of articles and news reports out there showing that BOTH sides having engaged in book banning, pushing conspiracy theories, etc.

Plenty of articles that claim the earth is flat. Quantity is not the same as veracity. Source is important as well. Life is not black and white, but shades of grey, and one party is demonstrably far darker in terms of book banning activities and various other lies meant to support their own power base. You continued claim both are equivalent (dont go pedantic on me) is intended to muddy the water, but I don't buy it.
 

ninethirty

macrumors 68000
Mar 1, 2006
1,541
1,616
There are plenty of articles and news reports out there showing that BOTH sides having engaged in book banning, pushing conspiracy theories, etc.





No. The argument I was making is that one side isn't significantly worse (or better) than the other. Obviously, there are differences (as there should be) which is a reason why we have two major parties. My specific comment was, "Anyone who thinks one side is significantly worse (or better) than the other is clearly too biased or brainwashed by "their side", and the media can be blamed for a lot of it."





Unfortunately, not nearly enough people feel and behave that way.
Would you mind sharing some of those articles please? I'm unaware of Democratic governors banning and removing books from public schools, and while I will agree that both parties have their share of crazies, I don't know of any high profile Democrats that peddle conspiracy theories.

Thank you!
 

ksj1

macrumors 6502
Jul 17, 2018
294
535
If D have all they keys to the kingdom, why SF is such a s**t-hole com - and R-run Fort Worth is lightyears ahead of it?

1676588998690.png
1676589037686.png

Looks like SF is a safer city than Ft. Worth....
 
  • Like
Reactions: seek3r and Treq

Treq

macrumors 6502a
Apr 23, 2009
970
1,523
Santa Monica, CA
Wait, aint vast majority of big cities are run by D mayors? Way easier to cherry-pick D city and pit it against small numbers of (sorry for tautology) small R-run city.

If D have all they keys to the kingdom, why SF is such a s**t-hole com - and R-run Fort Worth is lightyears ahead of it?

FWIW, I'd like to see "war on drugs" in SF. Finding fentanyl on a kids playground and rushing your kid to ER (real story) is not an enjoyable experience.

And I agree with you on lack of proper healthcare (akin to NHS in UK) and communal/federal mental institutions (hello, Mr Ronald Reagan) is despicable. Does that make me a left wing?
If you look at the numbers, cities run by republicans are much worse off than the ones run by the Democratic Party members. Even with the bussing of homeless to blue states presumably to “own the libs” and I would much rather live in SF than Fort Worth… not even a question about it. Of course those two cities are very different and can’t really be compared. Texas is just awful. CA is much more prosperous and better run state. But, on this we can agree, Reagan was just an awful president. The damage he caused this country is still being felt to this day and probably for decades to come. The union busting, tax cuts for the rich, fostering the myth of trickle down economics which has never worked anywhere ever. Yeah, Reagan and the republicans who idolize him really hurt this country.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: GMShadow
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.