Some people are confused as to how anti-vax sentiment can be considered progressive, since the dominant narrative has been that anti-vax is a right wing idea.
That only happened very recently. Prior to the pandemic, the largest constituency of anti-vaxxers were progressive women who were worried about the effects of vaccines on their children since they're drugs produced by big pharma who have several blockbuster examples of selling things that turned out to be horrible such as thalidomide. It appeals to the anti-corporate sector of progressivism, and there would be an element where instead of using big pharma chemicals they'd prefer to use more naturalistic methods to stay healthy such as diet, exercise, and herbal supplements.
There's data to back up the idea that anti-vaxxing is more of a left-wing idea, and that's the fact that many breakthrough cases of preventable diseases such as measles and mumps are in states such as California which have a lot more adherence to progressive ideology.
The right wing version of anti-vaxxing is actually a misnomer since it's typically only the one set of vaccines they're concerned about, and most right wing "anti-vaxxers" will fully vaccinate their kids except for the one. In reality it's more just linguistic propaganda being used to try to shame people into doing what they're told.
It's a simple logical argument: "Some As are B, which does not imply all As are B" some vaccines are effective and useful, but not all are. And some vaccines are particularly useful for some people at some times, but not as useful generally -- If you're bitten by a rabid dog, a rabies vaccine will save your life, but typically we don't blanket vaccinate people for rabies because the exposure to rabies is very low (most people will never be at risk), and the vaccine is highly effective after the initial bite if it's given quickly enough. Like many things, it's a decision relying on personal circumstances as well as blanket categorizations.
Some people go "But doctors said it was ok!" but doctors also prescribed thalidomide to pregnant women so let's chill out and accept that it's ok for people to use their brains and think for themselves even if they come to conclusions we don't agree with.
It is a first principle of medical interventions that every medical intervention has the potential to cause harm. Even something with no active medical ingredient such as sugar pill has recorded side effects due to placebo effect, and once you start injecting manufactured substances into the body the risk increases considerably. Therefore it's sensible to be careful about choosing medical interventions whose benefits outweigh the risks. That's true whatever your political ideology.
That only happened very recently. Prior to the pandemic, the largest constituency of anti-vaxxers were progressive women who were worried about the effects of vaccines on their children since they're drugs produced by big pharma who have several blockbuster examples of selling things that turned out to be horrible such as thalidomide. It appeals to the anti-corporate sector of progressivism, and there would be an element where instead of using big pharma chemicals they'd prefer to use more naturalistic methods to stay healthy such as diet, exercise, and herbal supplements.
There's data to back up the idea that anti-vaxxing is more of a left-wing idea, and that's the fact that many breakthrough cases of preventable diseases such as measles and mumps are in states such as California which have a lot more adherence to progressive ideology.
The right wing version of anti-vaxxing is actually a misnomer since it's typically only the one set of vaccines they're concerned about, and most right wing "anti-vaxxers" will fully vaccinate their kids except for the one. In reality it's more just linguistic propaganda being used to try to shame people into doing what they're told.
It's a simple logical argument: "Some As are B, which does not imply all As are B" some vaccines are effective and useful, but not all are. And some vaccines are particularly useful for some people at some times, but not as useful generally -- If you're bitten by a rabid dog, a rabies vaccine will save your life, but typically we don't blanket vaccinate people for rabies because the exposure to rabies is very low (most people will never be at risk), and the vaccine is highly effective after the initial bite if it's given quickly enough. Like many things, it's a decision relying on personal circumstances as well as blanket categorizations.
Some people go "But doctors said it was ok!" but doctors also prescribed thalidomide to pregnant women so let's chill out and accept that it's ok for people to use their brains and think for themselves even if they come to conclusions we don't agree with.
It is a first principle of medical interventions that every medical intervention has the potential to cause harm. Even something with no active medical ingredient such as sugar pill has recorded side effects due to placebo effect, and once you start injecting manufactured substances into the body the risk increases considerably. Therefore it's sensible to be careful about choosing medical interventions whose benefits outweigh the risks. That's true whatever your political ideology.
His positive legacy will be that. The negative is I think he'll be even more hated than his dad. I don't think his kids will be able to become prime minister using his name.
One thing that the film Idiocracy got wrong is that the only form of idiocy is not populistic and anti-intellectual. You can also absolutely have a form of idiocy that is elitist and pseudo-intellectual.
In my view, yes one faction would be watching "ow my balls", but another person would be watching an equally vapid TV show called "let's laugh at the people watching ow my balls". Wow it might have a veneer of intellectualism, in reality it would simply be another form of petty dumb entertainment.
One form of idiocy may be convinced by "Brawndo has what plants crave", but another group may be chanting "scientists and philosophers all agree Brawndo is what plants crave!" Even though they know nothing about science or philosophy.
You shouldn't pick between the two sides because they are both wrong, and both idiocies appeal to baser emotions. Most people know that populism appeals to a desire for simplicity in the world, well elitism appeals to the desire to be able to look down on someone who isn't you. Both forms of idiocy demand conformance to a standard that matches their worldview.
Because at the moment that's the narrative, people may believe that populist idiocy leads to the erosion of democratic values and the spread of misinformation while elitist idiocy creates social divisions and hinders progress. In reality, all forms of idiocy do all of the above. The fact that a falsehood is being spread by people pretending to be smarter than everyone else doesn't make it a truth, it's still just as much a falsehood. The fact that an elitist wants to corrupt democracy because they look down on the people watching "ow my balls" instead of those watching "watching people watch ow my balls, how stupid are these people?" doesn't mean democracy is magically intact. Just because someone is doing something that will regress or otherwise harm society doesn't mean it's not so just because it's a populist doing it, and dividing up people into different classes of people divides society whether your contention is that the populists are the "good guys" or the elitists.
While populism or elitism have representations in idiocy, that doesn't mean that these ideologies are inherently idiotic or that they can't have very meaningful and engaging representations. There are in fact sophisticated arguments for both, and within both. The key isn't the form of idiocy, rather it's the fact that idiocy can have a thousand faces, and using the presentation of one form of idiocy as a heuristic for detecting all forms of idiocy is not accurate.
Ironically, the idea of using the film "Idiocracy" as a heuristic for idiocy is a form of idiocy. You'll see people unthinkingly chant "That's just like the movie Idiocracy!" as if that actually means anything. This only serves as further evidence of my point, that idiocy takes many forms, and there's no ideology you can follow to be inherently immune to it. The key for people who are not physically idiots due to environmental, biological, or developmental factors (who can be forgiven for their infirmities) is to avoid being ideologically idiotic by thinking for oneself -- Critically think, consider the consequences of your thoughts, understand and accept that whatever you choose to believe will not be wholly correct or wholly just or wholly moral. You might end up wrong about something, but at least you came by your conclusions honestly, and if you're not being an idiot and you're wrong, then there's a good chance you will change your mind eventually.
In my view, yes one faction would be watching "ow my balls", but another person would be watching an equally vapid TV show called "let's laugh at the people watching ow my balls". Wow it might have a veneer of intellectualism, in reality it would simply be another form of petty dumb entertainment.
One form of idiocy may be convinced by "Brawndo has what plants crave", but another group may be chanting "scientists and philosophers all agree Brawndo is what plants crave!" Even though they know nothing about science or philosophy.
You shouldn't pick between the two sides because they are both wrong, and both idiocies appeal to baser emotions. Most people know that populism appeals to a desire for simplicity in the world, well elitism appeals to the desire to be able to look down on someone who isn't you. Both forms of idiocy demand conformance to a standard that matches their worldview.
Because at the moment that's the narrative, people may believe that populist idiocy leads to the erosion of democratic values and the spread of misinformation while elitist idiocy creates social divisions and hinders progress. In reality, all forms of idiocy do all of the above. The fact that a falsehood is being spread by people pretending to be smarter than everyone else doesn't make it a truth, it's still just as much a falsehood. The fact that an elitist wants to corrupt democracy because they look down on the people watching "ow my balls" instead of those watching "watching people watch ow my balls, how stupid are these people?" doesn't mean democracy is magically intact. Just because someone is doing something that will regress or otherwise harm society doesn't mean it's not so just because it's a populist doing it, and dividing up people into different classes of people divides society whether your contention is that the populists are the "good guys" or the elitists.
While populism or elitism have representations in idiocy, that doesn't mean that these ideologies are inherently idiotic or that they can't have very meaningful and engaging representations. There are in fact sophisticated arguments for both, and within both. The key isn't the form of idiocy, rather it's the fact that idiocy can have a thousand faces, and using the presentation of one form of idiocy as a heuristic for detecting all forms of idiocy is not accurate.
Ironically, the idea of using the film "Idiocracy" as a heuristic for idiocy is a form of idiocy. You'll see people unthinkingly chant "That's just like the movie Idiocracy!" as if that actually means anything. This only serves as further evidence of my point, that idiocy takes many forms, and there's no ideology you can follow to be inherently immune to it. The key for people who are not physically idiots due to environmental, biological, or developmental factors (who can be forgiven for their infirmities) is to avoid being ideologically idiotic by thinking for oneself -- Critically think, consider the consequences of your thoughts, understand and accept that whatever you choose to believe will not be wholly correct or wholly just or wholly moral. You might end up wrong about something, but at least you came by your conclusions honestly, and if you're not being an idiot and you're wrong, then there's a good chance you will change your mind eventually.
Australia has a neat system called Superannuation, where part of every paycheque is put into a fund you have some control over, and that's your personal social security fund.
It sure seems like around the world people are growing a pair and not letting themselves be bullied into supporting the establishment.. you always have to be careful because politicians often end up being different than what they run as, but even up here in Soviet Canuckistan we seem on track to get a leader who understands what the country actually needs.
No lie detected. I think that that was the biggest win of the Trump presidency was helping people realize just how corrupt the Republicans were.
Arguably the federal government probably shouldn't be involved with any of those things anyway, so let's just give those the old snippy snip, cut everyone's taxes by 75%, and still have large budget surpluses you can put towards the overwhelming debt. If certain States want to have all that stuff, they can implement it themselves.
If he cut government for real, there would have been less federal spending. In a lot of ways, economically he was more left-wing than Bill Clinton.
In the case of Bill Clinton you can't completely give the credit to him because he also had a Republican legislature pushing him in that direction, but he still signed a lot of legislation that had Donald Trump signed it would have absolutely set the media on fire.
In the case of Bill Clinton you can't completely give the credit to him because he also had a Republican legislature pushing him in that direction, but he still signed a lot of legislation that had Donald Trump signed it would have absolutely set the media on fire.
The cloud is when you have a diagram, and you draw a cloud and you write "not my problem" on the cloud. Of course, you can write whatever you want on a piece of paper but it can very quickly become your problem regardless of what you wrote there.
People think that this is a left versus right thing, but in reality it's a mindless sheep versus critical thinkers thing. Anyone who trusts their own eyes and their own brain is insulted by the level of falsehood being pedaled on a daily basis, but there's a shocking number of people who just believe whatever they're told to believe.
Many such people are told about the Nazis and think that they wouldn't be Nazis, but if the media told them to they would.
Many such people are told about the Nazis and think that they wouldn't be Nazis, but if the media told them to they would.
Funny, I thought the only reason he's down in the polls is people aren't thinking of politics?
I was listening to a speech from Thomas Sowell, and he was talking about the effects of Price controls. He said that when price controls happen either supply goes way down or quality goes way down.
Central banks are essentially price controls for money, and we sort of see it. Money is cheap, so money gets worse.
Problem as you say is that people start to rely on the price controls and so if you take them away it'll hurt a lot of people a lot while the market finds itself.
Central banks are essentially price controls for money, and we sort of see it. Money is cheap, so money gets worse.
Problem as you say is that people start to rely on the price controls and so if you take them away it'll hurt a lot of people a lot while the market finds itself.