'Facebook Isn't Killing People' -- Biden Walks Back Attack Over Vaccine Lies (cnbc.com) 241
President Joe Biden walked back some of his criticism of Facebook, saying Monday he meant to accuse a dozen users, but not the social media platform itself, of spreading deadly lies about Covid vaccines. From a report: "Facebook isn't killing people," Biden said. Biden added that he hopes Facebook will do more to fight "the outrageous misinformation" about coronavirus vaccines being spread on its platform "instead of taking it personally that somehow I'm saying Facebook is killing people." Last week, Biden appeared to say just that: Asked outside the White House what his message was to platforms like Facebook regarding Covid disinformation, Biden said, "They're killing people. I mean they really, look, the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated, and that's -- they're killing people," Biden said Friday.
Yes, they ARE (Score:5, Insightful)
BS is killing people, and Facebook is a primary BS magnifier due to their eyeball-seeking algorithms. Joe was right the first time, although it's not a diplomatic way to say it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since you didn't quote it.. does that mean its not true? So confused.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, saying that Facebook isn't killing people is like saying that guns don't kill people...sure, not on their own, but they sure make the act far easier to carry out at scale and distance. If you put Facebook on the dictator body count scoreboard by deaths facilitated, they'd be in the top 15 for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Preferably with verifiable numbers...
Re: (Score:2)
We largely can't trace deaths by propaganda, hate speech, and disinformation definitively back to Facebook posts, but I think the most solid connections can be made to the Rohingya genocide, and COVID-19-era vaccine disinformation, especially in the US. The Rohingya genocide has killed about 20,000~40,000, and about 400,000 people have died from COVID19 in the US. If we estimate that both of those problems would've been only half as bad without Facebook, those two would immediately put Facebook behind Basha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I use 50% as the upper limit because that's that's about how many less would've died if the US had the same number of per-capita deaths as Canada, which I'm using as a reasonable best-case scenario.
25% is my American whackadoodle estimate factor - how many might've died because some Americans might just be too nutty/pathologically distrustful of government for any kind of public health measures to work regardless of what anyone in charge is doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, saying that Facebook isn't killing people is like saying that guns don't kill people...
Guns don't kill people, bullets do. Facebook is a gun, misinformation are (is?) the bullets. People pull the trigger either way.
(Or maybe Facebook is Texas (now) allowing anyone to open carry without a license or any training at all ...)
Re: (Score:2)
And providing the gun...and bullet-making tools. Just some raw materials and assembly required!
Re: (Score:2)
Then why FB in particular?
There are TONS of social media systems that encourage people to spread stupid shit all day long.
Youtube absolutely.
Twitter absolutely.
Why - I'm seriously asking - is FB the particular whipping boy? I know the answer. Do you?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the answer is that Facebook is the practical-monopoly option for full-featured general-purpose social networking sites, and one of the most lax on moderation, but feel free to tell me why you think Facebook is getting the most flack at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, saying that Facebook isn't killing people is like saying that guns don't kill people...sure, not on their own, but they sure make the act far easier to carry out at scale and distance.
Hardly. Guns are a tool designed for killing. Facebook is a tool designed for people to share shit they think other people may see powered by an algorithm that promotes people based on guesses.
In your analogy Facebook would be like the marketing company profiting from gun manufacturers putting guns on billboards all over the city which people are using to kill.
Imbalance Kills, not BS (Score:2, Insightful)
BS is killing people, and Facebook is a primary BS magnifier due to their eyeball-seeking algorithms
BS does not kill people, what kills people is not being able to get all sides of a story to make up their own minds properly. Attempting to block an opinion is just another form of amplification, a way to take an idea that might have just dies off naturally and give it extra longevity because no-one can talk about it openly - all they can do is believe it may be correct because there is so much energy around
Re:Imbalance Kills, not BS (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately most don't. Americans are morons who lack critical thinking skills. I even personally know evangelicals who say they'll pray about it and then go with their gut feeling. Unfortunately, their gut has a poor track record.
I have no problems with stupids killing themselves (except for maybe family), but when they take others with them, it's a problem. It's similar to the problem of pollution: it "leaks out" beyond those who profit from the shortcuts that lead to pollution and from those who think gov't scientists exaggerate the effects of pollution because they are "commies addicted to regulation". Stupidity doesn't respect walls. Pollution and viruses don't respect political boundaries. As is often quoted: "Your freedom [to be a moron] ends where my nose starts."
No human-built system is 100% perfect. It may kill 7, but save 10k on the other end.
I'd actually like to see warning labels instead of bans. For example, "The medical opinion expressed in this post may not reflect the majority of qualified medical experts. We advise you to seek the opinion of other qualified medical experts to get a more well-rounded viewpoint. Here are some suggested links..."
Re: (Score:2)
Why does giving medical advice on Facebook not count as practising medicine without a license? If one where to try giving medical advice in the real world rather than on social media that would not last very long.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately most don't. Americans are morons who lack critical thinking skills.
Uah. Typical America is number 1 bullshit. We in the rest of the world have morons too. You're not the best at everything, including stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
They could be telling the truth, but it's up to individual to weigh the pros and cons of a decision. I
Re: (Score:2)
That fact that USAicans have equated health choices to political parties
Which is funny. Because vaccine R&D, production and initial distribution [nih.gov] was all done by the Trump administration.
Re: (Score:2)
What purpose do you serve by making something more political than it has to be? The above comment was either a confused troll (hopefully) or someone who wanted to give an example of the problem I stated
Re: (Score:3)
done around the world by different people with their own personal political beliefs.
But funded by the Trump administration in this country.
What purpose do you serve by making something more political than it has to be?
Just pointing out the incongruities in various right wing groups pushing back against the same vaccine that their leader pushed for. But my mention of the name "Trump" has apparently triggered a severe TDS reaction.
All sides (Score:2)
Ah yes the side of science and the other side is the vaccine is made from aborted fetuses.
Not Imbalance, False Balance. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not imbalance, but false balance.
Your CDC example is perfect for this.
The CDC changed stance on masks because the circumstances changed. They were initially more concerned about a panic exacerbating a a shortage amount medical personnel(a concern proven very real), and then that priority shifted when BOTH more data on cloth mask effectiveness(not N95) came and out the scale of the pandemic had increased.
No legitimate criticism of this was ever blocked or censored. No, the problem was that an 'equal' counter position against this was fabricated to create false balance, and instead of focusing on actually important issues, this was polarized into a hyper partisan debate that's greatly undermined the ability to convey clear information.
That's the problem. No agency is perfect and they need oversight and criticism, but that needs to be grounded in reality and good faith. Creating proxy fights and false balance to drive viewership is the deadly act here.
they LIED (Score:2)
What "changed" is that government officials stoped lying about masks, which they knew from the beginning would help stop the spread of the virus. There is no reason whatsoever
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, you having stock doesn't mean there wasn't a supply problem.
I live with a Nurse. She had to make her own PPE, and had to rely on her own stock of N95 to last her the first several months of the pandemic. It wasn't until August that she could reliably get them again.
It's undeniable that full PPE levels were not reachable during the majority of the pandemic's first year.
Re: (Score:2)
BS does not kill people, what kills people is not being able to get all sides of a story to make up their own minds properly.
One doesn't really need *all* sides for some things. For example, if someone speculates that maybe injecting Bleach will cure COVID, (a) any semi-intelligent adult -- especially one who's actually used bleach -- should know that's a bad idea and (b) when every scientist and health professional in the world says that's a bad idea, you shouldn't really need to hear any of the "pro" arguments.
People that believe some BS are doing so because they believe the source to be honest, knowledgeable, responsible, a
Re: Imbalance Kills, not BS (Score:2)
Not all stories have multiple sides, though. At least, not before somebody with an agenda makes them up.
Re: (Score:3)
what kills people is not being able to get all sides of a story to make up their own minds properly.
Actually, most people are far less interested in getting all sides of a story than they are in having their personal beliefs and prejudices reinforced by being immersed in the personal beliefs and prejudices of like-minded people.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
The coronavirus is lethal. Masks slows transmission. The vaccines basically stops it in it's tracks. The vaccines are safe.
Those are facts. There are no alternatives. There isn't "two sides" to be had.
Bullshit, such as that you're spewing, has killed people. It's continuing to kill people.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh bullshit.
If I call you up on the phone and say the world is flat, it's the phone company's fault you believe me?
Jesus wept.
I find FB repellent, and only use it when I have absolutely no other choice (our kids' stupid marching band ONLY updates parents via FB, ew), but this is ridiculous.
SO...by your logic, I guess we should shut down twitter since they were instrumental in 'convincing' the fucking morons January 6th to storm the capital?
Re: Yes, they ARE (Score:2)
Twitter took the appropriate action against the instigator of the Capitol riot. Facebook has done squat.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what dirt Facebook had on Biden
No dirt per se. But they have the on/off switch on Biden and his supporters accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
"Publisher" as a legal term. I don't know if FB is because I'm not a lawyer. But they ARE responsible for content in that their algorithms determine how many people see what.
Being a publisher can be a legal distinction or just be used colloquially. But then again being responsible can either mean being legally responsible for damages or can just be used colloquially. So I'm not sure why you feel you can comment on one but not the other. You can comment on either if you like, with the stipulation that you don't know if they are a publisher or responsible in a legal sense.
Re: (Score:2)
So? Facebook makes recommendations based on what you choose to click on. Join a BLM group and you'll be recommended more BLM groups. Join a gun group and you'll be recommended more gun groups. There's no connection between those dots and censoring content. If FaceTwitTube decide to be in charge of content via censorship, then they can lose their 230 protections and be sued for allowing "the incitement of violenc [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"So, you want them to agree with you or else?"
For some things, yes, because there are some things that just aren't permissible, and everyone agrees on that.
Between that and unfettered free speech there is a whole world of nuance, and we also make regulations and laws to deal with that.
So it's definitely not one size fits all, some speech we disagree with is fine, some is just frowned upon, some is fined, and some is dealt with more strongly.
Re: (Score:2)
"For some things, yes, because there are some things that just aren't permissible, and everyone agrees on that.
Yeah, and everyone used to agree there were women and men...
Re: (Score:2)
You are misconstruing the lab origin. Both sides do not think it came from a lab. One side acknowledges that since we don't know where it came from its possible while the other side has been spouting conspiratorial non-sense throughout the pandemic leading to the deaths of thousands. We have so many youtube videos of people saying I didn't think it was real or I didn't think it would be this bad despite all the evidence.
There are ways of questioning the status quo, all of that was scapegoating and harmful
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps in the sense that as a society we insist that everyone agree (at least as far as actions go) that bank robbery is wrong or else..
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, it's impossible that the posters above have been consistently spewing this nonsense and not received a link to that article or something similar. They're being willfully ignorant, arguing in bad faith, or they're just spectacularly stupid.
He doesn't understand (Score:2)
This is the speech of someone that doesn't understand the problem.
Biden, like most older lawmakers, simply can not wrap their world view around the amount of influence social platforms now have in the 'american voice'. That while those few problem actors are directly responsible for the majority of misinformation, they exist and are able to utilize that influence simply because those platforms allow them.
Social platforms can easily identity these groups, especially as they don't bother to hide. They let the
I'll tell you what's killing people (Score:5, Insightful)
it's lack of education.
Anybody who's gone through a decent number of years in a decent schooling system can apply critical thinking and see a ridiculous conspiracy theory spewed on social media for what it really is.
When a sizable portion of the adult population of one of the most developed country in the world believes in utter bullshit, that's a problem of education. The education system is to blame in the US, and that responsibility lies squarely with the administration - i.e. Biden's and a large number of his predecessors'.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I'll tell you what's killing people (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody who's gone through a decent number of years in a decent schooling system can apply critical thinking and see a ridiculous conspiracy theory spewed on social media for what it really is.
But when is a conspiracy theory obvious? Sure the FBI blowing up the world trade centre, and Bill Gates microchips in the vaccine turning people magnetic would qualify. But what about the more subtle things? My parents are well educated and don't fall for bullshit, but they were taken down the road of complete vaccine skepticism during COVID for conspiracies which peddled half truths which require quite a bit of research to dig through and debunk. That's what's really dangerous.
Examples:
- The vaccine can't be trusted because the approval process was rushed and done in record time under emergency powers. Most of that post is true. Though careful research would replace the word "can't" with the word "can" and the word "rushed" with the word "optimised". But it stands to reason that people instantly agree with this without dissecting it because as everyone can see, it was in fact much faster to market than any other drug.
- Or: mRNA vaccines can't be trusted because this is the first mRNA vaccine and we have no long term experience with them. Most of that post is true. But carefully looking into the history shows that we have been trialling mRNA in animals and people for 20 years now. While we may not have used them in vaccines before we have trialled them in other therapies and have data on the body's long term reaction to them, enough data that two drug companies didn't go out on a moonshot here, but rather went straight to mRNA as a likely quick way of delivering a viable vaccine based on the knowledge they already had.
This stuff doesn't require further education to get to the bottom of. It requires actual serious effort, the kind which most people are not willing to put in. The only thing which is left then is listening to experts and taking it on faith that they have your good interest at heart. And which experts do you trust then? Reminder that the anti-vax movement was started by an (at the time) qualified and registered doctor.
You saw Fauci's lies from your degree? (Score:2)
Education isn't the problem, the American Regime is with its massive propaganda network. That right now is ginning up regime change on Cuba for suppressing internet freedom at the same time it's calling for a social media death penalty and threatening tech companies if they don't censor.
Re:I'll tell you what's killing people (Score:5, Informative)
If only there were some studies into the effectiveness of masks.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
Facebook is probably killing people... (Score:2)
Asbestos (Score:2)
I wonder what would happen if they only recently found that asbestos caused cancer. Would we be seeing patriots for asbestos or stop making asbestos political messages?
Facebook is killing morons (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're publishing it (Score:2)
So they're responsible.
Corrected headline (Score:2)
Facebook is absolutely getting people killed (Score:2)
how is that even in doubt?
It's the censorship, stupid (Score:2)
They said we need internet censorship because Covid.
They said we need internet censorship because 1/6.
They said we need internet censorship because domestic extremists.
Pretty sure they just want internet censorship.
Caitlin Johnstone [twitter.com]
Shitlibs cheered when Alex Jones got kicked off multiple social media platforms on the same day, and now Jen Propagandaski is openly calling for a social media death penalty. But how about your boss, Jen? Biden is an even m
Re:fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're right that people seek confirmation of their prior beliefs in social media, but it doesn't follow that they don't die as a result of getting it. The one thing that will convince people to reevaluate their beliefs is the example of other people around them, so wrapping them in an bubble of confirmation bias has consequences.
Plus not every person who has yet to be vaccinated is an outright anti-vaxxer. A lot of them are people sensitive to FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
And that makes it OK?
Re: (Score:2)
I think that it is participatory makes a big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be interesting to see a survey of where people get their vaccine news, especially the anti-vaxxers. The third of the population who thinks the vaccines are rigged/fake/bugged must get this view from something. I suspect it's a combination.
Is Facebook bad for helping idiots be stupid? (Score:2)
Claiming the stupid shit of 12 people on Facebook is killing anyone is wrong. You're assuming anyone changed their mind after reading the 12 people, when the reality is morons like to see their bullshit affirmed by another. So Joe can chill out, no one is being killed by facebook. Just as social media did not throw any election.
Kind of a dumb comment, but doesn't deserve troll censorship moderation. Ergo I'll requote it for visibility even though you're mostly wrong.
However, your Subject sucked too much and your own reasoning is fallacious, so I'm changing that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Democrats were in fact claiming that in 2016. When the royal She lost to an Oaf if was because of Russian influence on social media. And we wasted 3 years of the Oaf's term finding out just how much influence the Russians had via social media.
N.B. I'm independent, no party. Because the stupid, it burns!
Is Facebook bad for helping idiots be stupid? (Score:2)
You could be more thoughtful in your reply since you aren't in the desperate rush to FP. In particular, that was a vacuous Subject you propagated.
Re: fallacy (Score:2)
January 6th was successful in that January 7th happened. As for the Capitol protests, that's all it was. A bunch of hype about something that went on all of last year. No one cared until the protests came too close to the âoeprotected classâ. A block away and those same people wouldn't have mentioned it.
Re:fallacy (Score:5, Informative)
This is both naive and missing key facts.
1) There were weapons, lots of them. The FBI actually did a fair job here and stopped multiple bomb threats just prior to the attack. Weapon caches with multiple firearms and incendiary devices where found.
2) While the bulk of the people there were just rabblerousing, this was used as cover by more organized groups to take action. Thankfully things didn't get too out of control and these groups hesitated. There is extensive documentation on groups like the peacekeepers and their role in the attack.
If things had been just a little worse, if those bombs had gone off, if the crowd with babbit had actually breached that door, if martial law had been declared, etc etc.
We were a hairs breadth from real disaster. Don't down play this. Just because idiots are present doesn't mean there is a lack of planning.
Re: (Score:2)
And worse, some of the nuts in the Senate are actually supporting and defending the nuts that invaded the Senate.
Re: (Score:2)
> 1) There were weapons, lots of them. The FBI actually did a fair job here and stopped multiple bomb threats just prior to the attack. Weapon caches with multiple firearms and incendiary devices where found.
Somewhere outside they claimed to find weapons, but they haven't connected that to anyone actually in the Capitol. And they've made zero progress on whoever planted the pipe bombs outside the RNC and DNC which would have done basically nothing.
The prosecutors are arguing in court that an unassembled
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But they will do something is evidence is presented that she planned crimes.
This is what a conspiracy charge centers around, and it's how the law handles people that were stopped prior to committing the crime they had clear intent to commit.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah the good old 'They want to change things, so they must hate the country' argument.
Because identifying active issues with something and suggesting improvements means you want to destroy something.
In reality, our founder were largely vile. The 3/4 compromise is evil baked directly into the key framework of our country. Personally, I'm not sure how you'd even begin to address the issues that have arised from this, and continue to exist because of the history involved it in, while denying that it was a probl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a typo.
Luckily you understood the subject, though you seem to think that it's relative upside somehow erases the vileness it represents.
Recognizing that our country was founded on vile economic practices is important to understanding how to address the problems it's legacy has led to today.
Re: fallacy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're asking this question, you've completely missed the point.
But sure, let's answer that question.
The two most likely outcomes as I see it are either:
1) The U.S fails to form as a union and we split along ideological lines 100 years early/lose the war to the british.
2) The slave economy states wield an uneven degree of power and more greatly entrench that way of life into the countries framework.
Neither outcome is good.
Neither seem to make a good argument for 'How the US totally wasn't founded on vile
Re: fallacy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not arguing for a replacement. I'm not sure why you'd even think that if you've read anything I've written beyond that line, what exactly do you think we're conversing about?
I'll straight out tell you it's not about the compromise, or the effects of it, good or bad.
This is the text I referred the compromise for:
"Take note about how all the people screeching about how 'fragile our democracy is' are the very same people and organization going on and on about how vile our founders actually were, and how mu
Re: (Score:2)
You have to think deeper when you look at things like that (it was the 3/5 compromise BTW). It wasn't done because they believed the slaves were inferior to everyone else but as a recognition that slaves were not truly free to vote their own conscience and so would be used by their vile masters as an extension of their own voting power. The 3/5 compromise was a measure to limit the outsized voting power that the slave owners might have otherwise enjoyed.
Pretty much everything about slavery in the U.S. is mu
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very aware of all those things.
But those arguments ring hollow. It doesn't matter how beneficial it was, it doesn't matter how much it limited slave states power.
It's very inclusion codified slavery into the the founding documents, and more importantly represents the fact that had to include it. That is vileness, if it wasn't vile, the compromise wouldn't have been needed in the first place.
Arguing the "times" falls short as well, American style slavery is, ethically speaking, considerably worse than th
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative was that instead of the United States we would have had two much weaker nations form, one with unchecked support for slavery. Do you think that would have been better?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying it would?
Why does everyone think I'm trying to argue a replacement for it?
I'm pointing out that it's one of only two references to slavery as an intuition in the Constitution, and thus serves as a symbol of slavery. Combine that with its recension as part of the 13th amendment, and you have a powerful reminder that yes, we did actually found the country on slavery.
The fact that things may have been much worse had it not been included is a strong argument for how strongly entrenched that way o
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, I'm on your side, but seriously, get some better arguments. This is weak sauce.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I really don't think I do.
We have had multiple assassinations and attempted assassinations near enough that blood was drawn of presidents! The sun rose the next day, people went to work and school, life went on! If you can do that with a president you can do it with some congress critters.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and none of these things exclude significant, life changing events having occurred.
The idea that bad things need to be apocalyptic to be actually bad is the real fallacy here.
Re: (Score:2)
Outrageous, all right. Should've been easy to beat her.
The Republicans need to do some soul-searching while they still have one to search, and figure out what went wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
This post is super intolerant uneducated bullshit. The police were rounding up scores of people, just to round them up, regardless of whether they were doing anything outside of protesting - and the funds to bail them out were precisely that, intended to be used to help bail out those people (mostly people who wouldn't be able to post cash bond themselves) who were unlawfully detained, of which most were. Unfortunately there's no 100% accurate crystal ball to determine who was who, so some of the funds have
Re: fallacy (Score:5, Interesting)
Ugh, no they weren't. Get your news from better places. [theguardian.com] Additionally the police union building was set on fire by the police. That doesn't mean there was significant property damage but trying to equate these two events is disingenuous at best.
While I agree that our democracy is not as fragile and many make it out to be, Republicans are doing their best to tear down these pillars such as enacting legislation that allows them to overturn the will of the people. This is undemocratic behavior and I really don't need for this country to become a post apocalyptic nightmare before we do something about it. I was watching Fox News yesterday where they tried to make an argument against universal voter registration by questioning the motives of Democrats. The reality is that universal voter registration would result in both Republican and Democrat voters and is the only actual fair and democratic solution our right to vote is codified in the constitution and should be treated as sacred as the 1st and 2nd ammendements.
When Trump supporters in PA get slapped with a fine or probation for voting as their dead parents and Democrat supporters in Texas are getting 10 years of jail time for voting a month before their parole ended we have a very serious problem. This is not equal justice under the law and every American is supposed to be guaranteed such. We know that's not the case though, Afluenza is an actual legal defense in this country which only re-enforces that we do not have equal justice under the law.
Re:fallacy (Score:5, Informative)
A bomb doesn't need to be big to create panic, nor to split the attention of and man power of police staff.
There is no evidence to support the bomber was acting alone either. We don't know who his is, so we don't know the extent or lack of his connections.
The notable fact about the truck wasn't the guns(illegal they may be), but the dozen plus molotovs. There is no legitimate reason to have those and it's the height of bad faith to suggest that's normal. And that's not even mentioning the literal target list he had in the truck as well.
You are trying to sensationalize, no tresspassers/vandals in the capital building had guns.
Never said they did. The idea, incase you have missed it, is that organized groups like the peacekeepers were waiting for a tipping point to be reached before taking action. Thankfully, that point never occurred. Perhaps because the bombs didn't go off.
Perhaps because the house session wasn't delayed,
Perhaps because Congress was able to evacuate before being trapped.
But the elements were in place for it to have been worse, much much worse.
Ignoring and downplaying those elements is dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
1) The claim was the bomber was a lone actor. This is unsupported.
2) The Owner of the truck in question was charged with 2 weapons offenses, for the molotovs and for having an unlicensed weapon.
3) Oathkeeper(apologies, I did misname them) involvement is not 'made up' there is extensive evidence of their planning, as well as the involvement of other militia groups. Oathkeeper members have already plead guilty to conspiracy charges, finding their zello chat logs quite damning, including statements that they h
Re: (Score:2)
Replying to myself to make a correction.
17 weapon offenses, not 2. Amongst them:
possession of an unregistered firearm
carrying a pistol without a license
carrying a rifle or shotgun outside of a home or place of business
possession of a large ammunition feeding device
unlawful possession of ammunition
In addition to the multiple firearms in the truck, he did in fact carry 2 pistols on his person, Oh and he has recent ties to armed militia groups.
Re: (Score:3)
You are making up stuff about peacekeepers and every other group, making up a narrative when all the facts point to lone person placing pipes that didn't go off and wouldn't have hurt anyone if they did.
No "Insurrection" possible, that's just CNN and similar hype mongering.
Iggy, the only person cooking up a narrative is you. You're burning the fuck out of it. Things were so bad that TFG's top staff were privately discussing how to protect the government from a coup. Go educate yourself outside of a QOP circle-jerk and wake up to reality.
You sound exactly like Bobby Boucher saying "But mama said..." over and over and over... and over...
Re:fallacy (Score:5, Informative)
Morons are admitting to it https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:3)
hate to say it, but 700,000 out of 350 million people, is still only .2% of our population dying- this is not the plague that was sold at the beginning)
The fatality rate of the Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918 was 0.64%. Over 100 years ago, when medical knowledge and care was primitive compared to what we have today. The fatality rate of measles is more than an order of magnitude lower than COVID-19, yet only the rabid anti-vaxers argue against vaccination against measles. And really, do you think hospitals were running out of ICU beds and ventilators because the government was lying, or do you think the hospitals really weren't running out of resources but we
Re: (Score:2)
I have my own doubts about government, that's why I read the journal articles about the vaccine.
Biden should just shut up and stop pushing vaccines. Let the insurance companies do it instead.
Talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire!
Re: (Score:2)
Polio existed and was largely eradicated with a vaccine
Measles existed and sterilized thousands every year until that vaccine.
Need more examples? We have vaccines for all sorts of diseases, they are not produced by the Government and are held accountable by the FDA which can and does provide us with feedback as more information because available. Additionally data feeds are sent to the CDC and regional health research organizations. That's why J&J was briefly put on hold. To argue with the person tryin
Re: (Score:2)
If your mother lied about Santa, that means you can NEVER trust her again.
Bullseye AC. Bullseye.
Government perceives the governed as children who they can lie to with impunity for our own good. This is precisely why they cannot be trusted on things of great import independent of corroboration from a neutral and trusted source. The problem is that the list of trusted and neutral sources is getting very thin.
Re:HA! That's funny.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Popular "disinformation" is a result of official disinformation. The fish rots from the head first
True. Just look at Trump and the Republican Party.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats are right-wing freaks (Score:2)
The people demanding censorship in the name of fighting disinformation are the worst sources of disinformation. Five years of Russiagate and constant propaganda to support a failed state at home and a bloodthirsty American Empire abroad.
The weirdest thing about the Biden administration tasking itself with the censorship of "disinformation" on social media is that the United States is the hub of a globe-spanning empire that is b
Re: (Score:2)
Anything managed by humans will never be 100% perfect. Cherry-picking failures thus doesn't by itself mean the concept is flawed (compared to alternatives). And it's not just consensus, it's educated consensus.
Also do note that one is not required to pay any attention to the warning labels. Some readers may indeed not trust the American Medical Association, but the warning labels do not force them to trust it. It's just saying, "Hey, this content looks dodgy". The distrustful can still read the dodgy conte
Re: (Score:2)
We need to glue Jen Psaki's mouth onto Biden's ass
They can use the same person who glued all 4 of Trump's press secretaries, Sean Hannity's, Tucker Carlson's, Lindsey Graham's, Mitch McConnell's, Kevin McCarthy's -- heck all the Fox hosts and 90% of all the GOP House/Senate members (Fed and State) -- to Mr Sweet Potato's -- I mean -- Trump's ass ... (luckily, it's a *big* ass) :-)
Re: (Score:2)