Sean Mooney

Vaccines do not cause autism. It is most likely a rise because mediciene has a better handle on what autism is and thus it is diagnosed more often- perhaps too much. Here is an article: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5789217/ None of the studies done have shown any link between vaccines and autism. But I guess it shows that man or woman- if a beautiful blonde chick with huge tells you something- people will believe anything

Pew Research Center came out with the results of a poll today about where 18-29 year olds get their news. The results are probably not surprising. https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/18/media/news-influencers-social-media-conservative-study/index.html *EDIT* Here is the actual study where they define "news influencers" and everything Highlights: - 40% of that age group get their news from "news influencers" - Of that 40%, 65% said getting their news this way helped shape their understanding of current events and civic issues - News influencers are more conservative with 27% to left leaning 21%. On Facebook it is 39%-13% in favor of right wing news influencers. On Instagram it is 30-25%. - 77% of social media news influencers have no past or present affiliation with a news organization. Ones that did were found less likely to have a political lean but when they linked news stories they were likely to post from right wing news sources. - 63% of news influencers were men. 30% identify as women. (I guess the last 7% are unicorns or something). - Tik Tok is the only social media site where they found liberals outnumbers conservatives. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Make of this what you will but for me there are some issues with this all. Firstly, news organizations have editorial and standards policies. They work to get news stories correct (regardless of what side of the political aisle you are on) and will issue retractions and mea culpas when it turns out they reported something incorrectly. For news influencers they don't have that. They are less likely to backtrack on something and instead will double down onto it or just outright ignore it. However, at that point the story is the story and people won't second see the reality. Additionally- the news influencers blend fact with opinion. Too often when people discuss media bias they focus on left vs right and ignore that a place can be left or right yet be factually accurate. But for influencers they take small snippets of things and craft together carefully edited think pieces that spin lies and then make them easily consumable to people on the go. 30 seconds doesn't allow you to go in depth on something. So what we get are not just people potentially getting incorrect news, they may also be shaping opinions of their own based off the manipulation of someone putting out that incorrect news. And from there it becomes more and more pronounced. And the real problem here is- since so much of this seems to be coming from the right- the way to fight back against it will be more and more people on the left elevating their own edited commentaries as fact into the political spectrum. And then the pushback will be more people from the right doing it. And so on and so forth. So we will have people all across the country pulling their political ideologies from other people's ideologies more and more in a vacuum from the rest of the world AND not necessarily rooted in the reality of the situation. Essentially we will have matching echo chambers over running political discourse even more than we already have. You think it's crazy now- give it 10-15 more years like this.

Man you could not have missed the point anymore even if you tried to. Also, what critical thinking skills go into "Hey I like this person on X. I'm going to like their posts and click play." Lastly, your second sentence proves my point. People aren't going to using multiple sources or critical thinking skills. They are finding things that reinforce what they want to believe already. Social media creates algorithms for what we should watch based on our own curation. You aren't getting the opposing point of view. This isn't like days of old where you grabbed a local newspaper, or a national newspaper like The Los Angeles Times or New York Times, or hell the USA Today and read all the stories over a cup of coffee or while taking a dump. Social media news is like if I got the paper one day and only read the sports section. The next day the paper came and it was all sports. In that paper I just read NFL news and the next day the paper was just NFL sports news. Like this should worry people. Home schooling and school choice isn't going to stem that. In fact, it has little to nothing to do with it. And the other reason it should worry people is what I said- if one side does it, the other side will as well. And then it will be a battle to flood the market with as much one-sided content as possible.

Man if this isn't the pot calling the kettle, coal, crows, licorice, tar, and tires black.

What a weird story. It doesn't go into it but is there some law on the books in Georgia that would indicate about leaving a kid home alone below a certain age? There are a lot of things that places like CYS and that can get involved, but man this feels like a big overreach by the police barring anything on the books law wise.

But they are here now and people are still complaining. Perhaps some people are never happy?

A paper is supposed to present things from all sides. Are we arguing now they are not? I hope more people can come in to scold.

It's not "them." It's a guest essay from a person who writes for another website. The NYT- hell every paper in America- will feature syndicated columns or independent writers on a per diem type base.

Just tell RLLD you weren't using "you" to mean him...he inserted himself into the discussion. It's a tactic he enjoys.

It's fun to use his words back at him and watch him twist and squirm.

Not to say the least too that it is horribly bad optics if the person who is going to be the chief law enforcement officer of the land has a report out against him that we are just going to sweep under the rug because reasons....

I'd assume MDC is referring to the amount of damage that can be done in an equal amount of time with a gun versus a knife. For example- the Ikeda school massacre in Osaka lasted several minutes- that person entered an elementary school and stabbed 23 people, killing 8. Sandy Hook lasted 5 minutes. He killed 26 and himself. He also injured 2 others. In the Ikeda one they were able to wrestle the attacker to the ground. In Sandy Hook he offed himself. The Vegas shooter shot and killed 59 people and injured at least 413 people from additional gunfire and everything. That attack lasted 10 minutes. Also, not sure we should call someone a liberal moron- I know how much RLLD hates name calling a media organization because we can learn from them. But if we can call organizations liberal morons now than maybe MDC can find a source from The Young Turks to use since we know it's okay to use their stuff as long as they agree with you.

Fun fact: I never said anything about "the right." I presented the Geek Club in the hypothetical conversation. And again- you are assigning meaning to what Joe and Mika did and are purposely positioning it because what they say doesn't align with your thoughts on it are. Then you find sources to support what you want to believe and find a source (TYT) that is way hyper partisan left which of course would push back on a guy, and show, who is more to the middle than they are. This is how an echo chamber is formed. This is why you shouldn't change the opinion on a source based off them agreeing or disagreeing with you. You should know its time to stop that. And as part of that argument you had to position me as attacking the "right" even though I never said such a thing. I was mocking the logical gymnastics from The Geek Club think tank.

A fun game here has become- how many times can RLLD contradict himself?

Again- is this "you" (me) or "you" (universal)? I've often said a healthy Democrat party would be great. So would a healthy thinking GOP. And Joe and Mika are arguing that the Trump second term should be covered fairly and they are trying to extend an olive branch to a better coverage. And your response is "Those two clowns on morning joe folded pretty quick. This suggests, to me, that they knew what they were saying was all lies..... and now they are positioning to save themselves. Cowards. At least that rabid racist Joy Reid is standing by her filth......at least she is not some coward as well as a POS" I've seen the Turks stuff. I'd argue they are way too left and when people start going that far off the reservation they are no longer serious to me and I don't care what they think. Same thing when people fly wildly to the right and try to pass that stuff off as legit. I do ingest a number of sources from all angles of the political spectrum- both ones I agree and disagree with because I am fascinated with the manipulation in coverage. But again- I don't change my opinion of something just because I agree or disagree with them. I sometimes read articles from Mother Jones or from The Post Millennial- I disagree with them 98% of the time. I'm not going to take the 2% and try to make that 50/50 just because they agree with me on one thing. Again- that's just childish thinking where you are just looking to validate your own thoughts. You agree with them on this because they are calling out truth that matches with your deeply held beliefs. This is a negative, it is an opportunity you should use to reassess how you dole out trust in the media.

If only he was half as clever as he thought he was.

That's the skyscreaming part of it where the argument falls flat more often than not.

Wait- is this "you" (me) now or is it "you" (universal)? If it's my opinion of them I get to decide what they are to me. If you are establishing your opinion of something because of someone else's opinion I urge you to reconsider. And I don't really care why people are moving away from liberalism. I'm not one, so why would I give a sh!t? Again it is not dismissing them because I disagree with them. It is disagreeing with them because I think their biases override their intent and I don't care in that instance what they have to say. Do they sometimes agree with my leanings on something? Sure. But that doesn't automatically make me think they are intelligent or worthwhile as an organization. It is childish to turn off and on my opinion of someone because they align with me. If you want to be that childish go for it. I've seen you do that here enough. But your opinion on them doesn't change mine nor should it work vice versa.

But we do nothing about mental health because it always becomes a "can we run out the clock" discussion. Also, because some of the debate about the mental health stuff drifts to "take the guns from those people" and you get the push back. Guns are a weird spin cycle we always end up in.

Right...there are things to criticize Trump over. The vaccine push isn't one of them and it's sad he didn't stand behind it at the time.

They are idiots whether I agree with them or not. I don't flip the intelligence of someone based off whether I agree with them or not. That is hypocritical and childish in thinking. But it's fun you want to elevate them in this instance because you agree with them.

The Young Turks website is a gaggle of idiots. And pretty far left. Who cares what they think?

The framing of the thread title is dumb and it's pretty clear what the OP is going for in provocatively titling it that. I never said I'm for or against gun bannings- in fact I'm not. I think there are things that could be done to control some stuff about guns but going to a position of "let's take all guns" is insipid and quite frankly delusional. But the thread is titled in such a way that is a common counter argument to the gun stuff. Someone will shoot up a building and then someone will say "We need to ban guns." and someone will reply back "Well a person took over a plane with a box cutter, should we ban them too?" Honestly, I'm glad the article mentions the idea of how the mental health system is failing these people. We should have a long discussion about that in all these issues.

Why do you people always try to say "your guy"? I don't have a guy. I don't trust anyone in government at this point and think they are all crooked. I just find it inherently interesting that a bunch of people here who play amateur sleuths over Youtube videos put out by basement dwellers that show Biden is creepily touching kids or whatever other nonsense they want to put out there, but yet when we have an ethics committee investigating Gaetz. And there are things out about what was found. And he steps down from the House for this position right before the report comes out. And the House Speaker says "Well we shouldn't release the report at this point...." Well, that is a lot of smoke being ignored because someone doesn't want to call it a fire. And it isn't people cobbling together heavily edited videos. It is straight testimony from the victims in this case. I also find it inherently interesting that when this Gaetz stuff pops up you create long posts pushing at people on the left here for believing it yet you didn't really say a word on the Biden stuff.

They also don't seem to know that mRNA testing of vaccines has been ongoing for a long time. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/the-long-history-of-mrna-vaccines And I know they will discount this but- the NIAID has stuff on this timeline as well: https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/decades-making-mrna-covid-19-vaccines