211
‘Stakes are really high’: misinformation researcher changes tack for 2024 US election
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2024
211 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19107 readers
2745 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
By that logic, nobody in that story was raped. Or are you actually ignorant to the fact that people were fired if they didn't get the injection?
So which is it? Can't have it both ways
Nope, literally different cos the lady in your example couldn't consent. You could 100% consent to not being injected. Sure, you may have lost your job, but this isn't unique to the COVID vaccine. There are shit loads of examples of people losing their jobs because they were unsafe in the workplace. And not getting vaccinated is literally being unsafe in the workplace. It's why many of those who lost their jobs due to being unvaccinated couldn't claim unemployment benefits in the states. Here's an example, you rock up to work drunk to drive a forklift for 8hrs. You get fired cos it's unsafe. Nobody is forcing you to sober up. Do what you want. You just can't work there anymore. Exactly the same thing.
She did consent. She consented to avoid losing her job. She wasn't forced by your logic
Nope. She can't consent. Which I've already linked to. I suggest you read it.
Neither could the person who was forced to get a different type of injection into their body in order to keep their job.
They 100% can. No power dynamic imbalance in the COVID case. Also, guarantee the employee signed a contract saying that the employer could fire them for just cause. Making the workplace unsafe is definitely just cause for that. And killing your fellow workers with a preventable disease sure sounds unsafe to me. And I know I'm repeating myself but you sure as shit ain't picking it up, but that's why you couldn't get unemployment benefits in the US if you were fired for not getting the jab. Because you were fired with just cause. Because noone was forced to get the jab. Because you could consent to it. The lady in your case literally could not give consent. You can argue all you want about it, but your shitty opinion doesn't change decades of legal precedent.
There's no power dynamic in losing your job? Glad to hear you also support zero protections on workers rights
Off topic. The injections did not stop the spread
There is no power dynamic imbalance brought about by your boss firing you for doing something unsafe. Hence why there has been literally 0 cases of workplaces being punished for firing employees who didn't get the vaccine.
And it's 100% on topic to mention that the disease was deadly and was literally killing people in many workplaces. It also reduced the spread, even if it didn't stop it. Cos it's really hard to spread a disease when you don't have it.
The same power dynamic balance is in play in both situations. Just admit it
Nope. Completely different. I've given you facts that support this. I suggest you do the same. Hell, I'll give you more. A boss who is in any kind of sexual relationship with a subordinate has way more power than they would over a subordinate who they were not having a relationship with (which does imply there is a power dynamic in play in all instances involving a boss and their employees. But that's not what you said. You said it was "the same"). And this can be proven by the multitude of cases where those bosses who've coerced their employees to have sex with them and then been charged. Like I said, literally 0 businesses have been punished for firing employees who didn't get the vaccine (and I've already told you why this is, because being fired for a safety related offence is just cause).
Also, if you are set in your belief that it isn't rape, why would you think that there is the same power imbalance? As far as your concerned, it's not even rape, so how could there be a power imbalance? And you're just gonna ignore the article that shows that vaccines slowed the transmission of COVID? That has a bunch of scientific studies referenced throughout? You are picking and choosing what you reply to, and trying to use that to seem smart. You're not, you couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag. Hell, I've seen 5yos make more convincing cases for an extra serve of icecream after dinner than you are making here...
That's a lot of words to dance around the fact that there's the same power dynamic in both situations. Just admit it already
It's a lot of words cos you didn't get the point when I pointed out how it was different with only a few words. Now, I asked you to support your claim with facts. You haven't. I'm going to assume that this means you can't prove it. Which means you're essentially admitting that you're wrong. Thanks. I knew spending time with you would eventually be satisfying, cos idiots like you generally make it painfully clear to everyone just idiotic you are.
People were forced to get the shot
Nope. They were given a choice. And like with most choices, there were repurcussions for that choice. But they still had the choice. Nobody put a gun to their head.
I'm still loving how your replies constantly ignore my pointing out your horseshit. You're so weak minded you can't even stay on topic. I didn't even mention the vaccine in my previous comment, and you hadn't mentioned it in your previous two. Could it be that it was the sole content of this latest comment of yours cos you can't keep up with the convo and can't defend your claims so you have to change the topic? Dear god, I hope you don't vote, nobody this dumb should have a say in how their country is run...
So was she. So no rape, right?
Dunno how I can make it any clearer without tattooing it to your forehead: She. Could. Not. Consent. Due. To. The. Power. Dynamic. We've also covered how the power dynamic in the rape example is wildly different to the dumbass retort I know you'll respond with that'll be along the lines of "so the same as COVID". That's been done to death. You're inability to understand this does not mean you are right. Sure, it means you're dumb as shit for continuing with this dumb as shit line of reasoning, but it doesn't change the fact that it is dumb as shit and thus you are wrong.
Neither could the other employee. They were both forced. Use your brain
Nope. The other employee was given a choice that was entirely fair. There was no abuse of power. I have given you a shitload of examples of how this works and why the two examples are vastly different. Hell, I literally did it in the comment I gave prior to this one. You have given me nothing but "nah, you're wrong, but I can't say why", despite me asking for more info from you. Leaves me no choice but to assume you can't defend your statements cos they can't be defended. Which saddens me. Means you're just doing this cos you're either an idiot, or full of hate. Neither one is particularly appealing.
Both were fair choices made in free will or neither were. Don't be a hypocrite, you're better than that
I have made it abundantly clear to as to why they are different. I'm not covering it again. I'd suggest you reread what I have written, as you sure as shit seem to still be confused over an issue that I've made incredibly easy for someone even as intellectually limited as yourself to understand.
Also, you have no idea what I'm better than or not. You don't know me from a bar of soap. So I'll kindly thank you to keep your opinions of me to yourself, I care even less for them than I do for your disgusting performance in this comment thread.
You've made nothing clear because you're still confused and can't understand how both are the same. Read back through and try to strengthen your understanding
I can't understand that they are the same, because they literally aren't and have given evidence to support these claims. You can't support your claims, which leads me to the conclusion that it's you who is the one who is still confused and further leads me to suggest that you "read back through and try to strengthen your understanding".
The coercion is the same. Neither can consent or both can. It's literally the same power dynamic
I have covered this in detail, with examples, already. You can keep repeating this horseshit line of logic all you want, it's not gonna change anything. Especially when you can't give any support to your argument. Noone gives a shit about your feelings.