Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

Fuckin’ citation needed mate. Dems control the media like Cnut controls the sea.

Edit: What was the point of posting three different news articles anyway? If the Dems control the media, you’d only need two.

Or is it because the NBC interviewer misinterpreted what the crowd was chanting, possibly deliberately?

Even if it was deliberately, what do you think that tells you, and why?

[Micro102]

Well when you say "both parties try to silence speech they don't like", I expect a damned good example. Because the go-to for republicans complaining about silenced speech are "anti-vaxx propoganda" and "Nazi shit". Aka things that kill people. Meanwhile republicans are trying to silence talk about racism and LGBT people in schools with vaguely worded bills that allow people to sue schools/teachers into oblivion. Some literally call for book burnings.

It's beyond ridiculous to even suggest they can be compared.

[wierd]

For media bias, cnn has been looked into by more or less reputable groups, and found to have biases in coverage. There is even a wikipedia article with citations.

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

More often though, stories that should get coverage are simply treated like they dont exist.  Take for instance, the highly conspicuous lack of coverage about the neurological and reproductive harm of covid, especially in young adults, which now has mass-replicated and substantiated findings.

You would think that is news worthy, but apparently not! 

I can find other high profile examples if you want.

[LordBaal]

Wait! So Musk, Gates or Bezos dont have a huge pool of cash and golden coins like a cartoon duck that they could use to pay the teachers... that's disapointing. My world foundations are gone.

[McTraveller]

Wait! So Musk, Gates or Bezos dont have a huge pool of cash and golden coins like a cartoon duck that they could use to pay the teachers... that's disapointing. My world foundations are gone.

Hey thanks!  That helped give me the words to clarify my point:

Most of the wealth of the uber-rich is in capital, not cash.  What I was aiming for is that you can't really pay teachers (or anyone, really) in capital: you need to pay them with the returns from capital*.

The Gates Foundation is an example of using returns to fund things - foundations like that (including, for example, large university endowments) don't sell their capital to fund their activities, they either use dividends or leverage their capital to fund their activities.

*After all, a factory or piece of land cannot generate wealth unless the factory or land is producing something.  Don't confusing "buy low sell high" with generate wealth either: generating wealth is actually creating goods and services, not merely getting more money in your pocketbook.  "Buy low sell high" merely moves wealth around - and it can and does incentivize the creation of more wealth - but does not create wealth itself.

[Lord Shonus]

To expand on what McTraveller is trying to say, assume Amazon puts out some new fancy truck tomorrow that makes their stock price shoot up. That makes Bezos much richer on paper. But what does he actually have that he doesn't today?

Now assume that a week from now, it turns out that the fancy new trucks dissolve in rainwater, and the stock price plummets. That makes Bezos much poorer on paper. What does he actually not have that he did when the trucks were great?

In both cases, the answer is "absolutely nothing". Long term, there will be differences in his pocket, especially if he pays out dividends to the stockholders, but at these levels net worth is numbers in a ledger that don't really translate to much real.

[Frumple]

Fuckin’ citation needed mate. Dems control the media like Cnut controls the sea.

Pointedly, saying sinclair like it's a throwaway instead of the rancid fucks calling the shots for a gigantic chunk of the country's local news is more than a little downplaying things

[Rolan7]

These holdings are not instantly fungible, but their value is very real.  They leverage these assets to acquire cash, then spend the cash on new assets.

Bill Gates can buy up miles and miles of family farms for his personal projects and then have relatively little cash.  These people do have access to cash, they simply spend it constantly in order to further accumulate wealth.  (Wealth which is taken from other people's work)

But yes, it is true that liquidating their accumulated assets would be... extremely inefficient and even disastrous.  It goes to show how absolutely insane and disgusting it is to "own" billions of dollars of anything.  No human has *earned* such a thing, no work is so valuable (much less "leveraging assets").  It is nothing more than an out of control economic disaster.

[hector13]

For media bias, cnn has been looked into by more or less reputable groups, and found to have biases in coverage. There is even a wikipedia article with citations.

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

More often though, stories that should get coverage are simply treated like they dont exist.  Take for instance, the highly conspicuous lack of coverage about the neurological and reproductive harm of covid, especially in young adults, which now has mass-replicated and substantiated findings.

You would think that is news worthy, but apparently not! 

I can find other high profile examples if you want.

That’s media bias, not democrats controlling media.

If the Dems controlled the media, no Republican would be elected, ever, and things like Fox “News” wouldn’t exist.

[MrRoboto75]

For media bias, cnn has been looked into by more or less reputable groups, and found to have biases in coverage. There is even a wikipedia article with citations.

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

More often though, stories that should get coverage are simply treated like they dont exist.  Take for instance, the highly conspicuous lack of coverage about the neurological and reproductive harm of covid, especially in young adults, which now has mass-replicated and substantiated findings.

You would think that is news worthy, but apparently not! 

I can find other high profile examples if you want.

That’s media bias, not democrats controlling media.

If the Dems controlled the media, no Republican would be elected, ever, and things like Fox “News” wouldn’t exist.

No, you see, our enemies are both all controlling yet also shockingly incompetent.

[bloop_bleep]

That is a common theme I see. You have people saying Biden is both a senile moron but also somehow a criminal mastermind who controls and manipulates people.

[None]

Ever heard of Let's.

Wait, isn't the New York Post the same rag that put out the incredibly damning (/s) Hunter Biden Laptop story?

THAT New York Post?

Like most pure movements in American political history, this one is not organized. It is spontaneous, somewhat hilarious, but it also gives people — who too often feel as though they are at the wrong end of the joke on social media and in the press — the ability to be part of something bigger than themselves.

...You're telling me this is the byproduct of Democrat media control? The New York Post glorifying and empowering the use of a dog whistle to get around saying 'fuck Joe Biden?' The one that the article states is entirely not organized and so surely not being directed by Democrat media?

[Micro102]

No, you see, our enemies are both all controlling yet also shockingly incompetent.

"Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak."

- Ur-Fascism

[bloop_bleep]

I think this is interesting to take a look at. The publisher is a peer-reviewed medical journal without many information veracity controversies that I can tell.

https://youtu.be/RaLxhFiOBYk

[wierd]

Concerning Pfizer's vaccine, yes-- many points in its development, and later revelations about cardiac inflammation,  etc-- have come up, with indications that it was swept under the rug, repeatedly.  Additionally, many influential people were invested in the Pfizer vaccine, giving it a strong "Too big to fail" mechanical impetus behind it.

Not saying Moderna is free from that, it's not, but Moderna's vaccine technology was .. how to put this.... "overly cautious"... in its development, and went out of its way to ensure very high purity, very high standards for transport and administration, very high quality controls in manufacture, et al-- as it was a groundbreaking testbed for a brand new vaccine type, and thus had to be as free from uncontrolled, and unaccounted for variables as possible, to prove that the technology itself was safe and effective.

Moderna was developing this tech long before covid 19 even thought about being a pandemic-- it has its roots in other conditions and diseases-- and was just rapidly adapted to covid-19, and the pandemic provided the impetus to get the technology into deployment in a short timetable-- The people making it had already been working with mRNA based delivery strategies for quite some time, and knew exactly what they were doing.

Pfizer on the other hand, seems to have been produced with less consideration in mind, with a primary focus on "rapid delivery timetable" and less on "Prove the technology works, is safe, and reliable" like with Moderna's.

J&J's vaccine is based on very old vaccine technologies, namely adenovirus vector based delivery, and is much less selective in what gets put inside the adenovirus, and the adenovirus itself is not terribly selective about where it integrates the payload dna into the host genome.  J&J vaccine, and other adenovirus vector vaccines, have been implicated in an increased risk of thrombosis in patients.

There is a reason why I selected, and stuck with, Moderna's vaccination regimen. 


It is also VERY important to point out, that despite the above, all of the US vaccines are actually quite effective and safe, in absolute terms.  Just, given the choice, I selected the one with the greatest procedural controls, highest quality standards in preparation, and with the least risk of developing complication. (Moderna's mRNA is very specific, and not at all a wide section of viral proteins being produced after inoculation), because I was in a position to do so, and informed about which of the choices best met that safety requirement.