I don't want to be this obnoxious person who is either extremely anti vax or pro vax. Everyone should choose for themselves and see if it's worth it but it looks like it's not that important to vaccinate the very young population. Even the more liberal media seems to agree on that.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/17/long-covid-in-children-and-adolescents-is-less-common-than-previously-feared?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/09/teenage-boys-risk-vaccines-covid/
https://twitter.com/heckyessica/status/1436102998778859524?s=09
You know what I really don’t want to see? Snarky tweets that ~own the libs~ from GOP leadership

What I’d like to see: inferno-like fury from GOP leaders backed by actual efforts to shut down this insane mandate

I’m tired of social media zingers with zero follow through

Not normally something I’d post. The Nazi claim is almost always deliberate hyperbole, but there’s no arguing the transitive property.

youtube.com/watch?v=qY1QNtnvUR there may be more of a story behind this, but an unfulfilled press conference is not a great look. As usual, the talking points precede the actual story, if there is one.

Part of our national (and international) news problem is that many (most?) people know that news isn't always trustworthy (even if we differ on how bad it is).

But when the reaction to this problem splinters into a hundred different niche viewpoints in the form of relatively subjective small-time news sources, each of which captures a specific segment of the political spectrum, it becomes a huge challenge to find a balance on the veracity of any given story.

The variety of available viewpoints is positive, no doubt, but it introduces a whole host of new headaches.

Face masks and CO2 (e..g noagendasocial.com/@BlkDudeNam), not a new debate, and the research going back years presents a spectrum of conclusions (c.f .web.archive.org/web/2019060808).

One key element, though, is that research in the past has rarely focused on long-term exposure to these conditions (with some exceptions, as with the Navy: nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5#5).

It seems clear that there is some effect (even the most conservative findings indicate some minor negative outcomes, like anxiety and discomfort), but there's a lingering question of just how significant the impact when repeated on and off over a long period of time.

We can expect such research eventually, but probably not soon enough to tell us anything significant -- this is the typical process of medical research, which has difficultly with speed.

Mass spreader event = "gathering of people I don't like." This underhanded tactic continues to be used in all "sides" in politics, and it is truly underwhelming, and unworthy of the use of any but the worst of causes.

In most instances, all an argument proves is that two people are present.

My favorite part of election night is that everybody is sure of themselves (or at least pretending to be).

Perhaps the 3rd party voters are in some sense the most likely to be correct, since they know their candidate will lose -- they vote to prove a point. Worth it? Depends on your perspective.

Does fringe violence reflect the whole of the parties embraced by those who committed it?

Is there a line beyond which the amount of violence associated with a certain viewpoint is too great to countenance the acceptance of even the most peaceable of related ideals?

How should those in any group react to violence that supports some of their own beliefs, but which act itself they would strictly condemn?

The more we see violence, the more we condemn not only the violence but the viewpoint behind it. Yet few movements are immune from fringe elements. Where, then, might we turn?

I tell myself everything will calm down after a while, but people love to be agitated -- or at least, the loud ones do.

Freespeech

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!