EPTJust because there was once an event where being against a thing would have been a good idea, that does not mean that you should be against every thing now.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5153
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11783 Posts
Just because there was once an event where being against a thing would have been a good idea, that does not mean that you should be against every thing now. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26411 Posts
On August 11 2025 06:48 Simberto wrote: But we are not talking about trans fats here. We are talking about vaccinations. Just because there was once an event where being against a thing would have been a good idea, that does not mean that you should be against every thing now. If you’re just pathologically against ‘the establishment’ or industry expertise and potential conflicts of interest, you will eventually be right on one. Or two or whatever. It defines a lot of modern-day ‘skepticism’, but it’s no more a robust skeptical framework than blindly swallowing what the ‘experts’ say. Indeed, I’d wager your percentage hit rate on being correct is higher with the latter approach. I think it’s dangerous to give people like RFK even reluctant credit, because even when he’s point the process is so dysfunctional. There are plenty of people without his considerable baggage who’ve warned about the dangers of trans fats, or anything else he may stumble upon vaguely being on the correct side, indeed people with actual expertise | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9188 Posts
On August 11 2025 05:13 BlackJack wrote: However, playing devil's advocate, I'd point out things such as the FDA for years advising that Trans fats are generally regarded as safe. The WHO estimated that trans fats led the deaths of 500,000 people annually. 500,000 is a really big number of caskets for something that provides no benefit outside of widening the profit margins of mega-food conglomerates. It took many years of campaigning the FDA and HHS to eliminate trans fats and when they did they still allowed 3 years to phase them out. The ban is believed to prevent 90,000 deaths annually in the United States and $140 billion in healthcare savings over 20 years. Again, absolutely massive numbers. Would a rogue like RFK have led to a more timely ban of franken-fats if he were in office say 10 or 20 years ago? Maybe. At 90,000 deaths annually from allowing corporations to poison us, we're going to need a lot more measles outbreaks just for RFK to make par. It's not the M.O. of people like that to simply join the academic position against the industry position, it's too straightforward, they need to feel smarter than both. More likely to have added colloidal silver to every school lunch to increase the kids' mana pools and unlock their latent psychic abilities. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On August 11 2025 06:48 Simberto wrote: But we are not talking about trans fats here. We are talking about vaccinations. Just because there was once an event where being against a thing would have been a good idea, that does not mean that you should be against every thing now. I wonder if that argument would work in reverse? If I said I like RFK because he's going to ban some of the artificial shit in food and you said he's harming vaccine uptake could I then reply "But we're not talking about vaccines here. We're talking about the artificial shit in our food." I think it's obvious that we should be looking at everything in the aggregate and not zooming in on one thing while ignoring others. To borrow a sports term, you need to look at VORP, or value over replacement player. Essentially you need to look at what's different if RFK would be replaced by some random suit. Are we better off or worse off? I happen to think RFK would be worse for the country then the random replacement guy, but unlike a lot of people I don't feel like I'm ceding ground simply by acknowledging that maybe it's good if we have less artificial shit in food and have fewer pharma execs on food and drug advisory boards. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On August 11 2025 07:44 Dan HH wrote: It's not the M.O. of people like that to simply join the academic position against the industry position, it's too straightforward, they need to feel smarter than both. More likely to have added colloidal silver to every school lunch to increase the kids' mana pools and unlock their latent psychic abilities. Yes, that's right. I think RFK is a fan of using beef tallow for fat which is not something either recommend due to higher saturated fat / cholesterol of animal fats. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26411 Posts
On August 11 2025 07:45 BlackJack wrote: I wonder if that argument would work in reverse? If I said I like RFK because he's going to ban some of the artificial shit in food and you said he's harming vaccine uptake could I then reply "But we're not talking about vaccines here. We're talking about the artificial shit in our food." I think it's obvious that we should be looking at everything in the aggregate and not zooming in on one thing while ignoring others. To borrow a sports term, you need to look at VORP, or value over replacement player. Essentially you need to look at what's different if RFK would be replaced by some random suit. Are we better off or worse off? I happen to think RFK would be worse for the country then the random replacement guy, but unlike a lot of people I don't feel like I'm ceding ground simply by acknowledging that maybe it's good if we have less artificial shit in food and have fewer pharma execs on food and drug advisory boards. In a hypothetical world where say, RFK was the only guy who had issues with artificial shit in good or the other stuff you mentioned, with a realistic shot of being in a position of actual influencing things, I can see a case there for sure. But I mean he really isn’t that | ||
|
Gescom
Canada3509 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26411 Posts
On August 11 2025 08:53 Gescom wrote: Amazing to me that there's even room for debate. What are we discussing? "How much of a fucking idiot is this guy on a scale of 1-10. A 9, or a 10?" Welcome to modern day ‘conservatism’ | ||
|
Razyda
913 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
The modern day anti-vax movement was born in the liberal elite circles of southern California. The face of it was Jenny Mccarthy, Jim Carrey, and RFK who of course was also a life-long Democrat and came from Democratic party family royalty. He's also an environmental protection lawyer that's worked for the NRDC. Plenty of left-wing people in the anti-GMO, anti-synthetic pesticides camps. This is not a strictly conservative thing. Constantly outcasting people that then get folded into the conservative alliance is not a winning strategy. "Well good! We don't want them anyway!" they say, as they lose another election. | ||
|
Gescom
Canada3509 Posts
On August 11 2025 11:13 BlackJack wrote: The modern day anti-vax movement was born in the liberal elite circles of southern California. The face of it was Jenny Mccarthy, Jim Carrey, and RFK who of course was also a life-long Democrat and came from Democratic party family royalty. He's also an environmental protection lawyer that's worked for the NRDC. Plenty of left-wing people in the anti-GMO, anti-synthetic pesticides camps. This is not a strictly conservative thing. Constantly outcasting people that then get folded into the conservative alliance is not a winning strategy. "Well good! We don't want them anyway!" they say, as they lose another election. You're right. Except Jenny McCarthy and other granola goofs were widely ridiculed unanimously by the other 99.9% and were never in any position of authority, ever. It's not hard to dispute; Vermont, Massachusetts had 90% covid vax rates compared to 40% in the American South. What point are you trying to make? The current movement is very mainstream and is only grounded in high level political GRIFT. I don't think any implication was made about electability -- That's not what we're talking about -- other than the obvious observation that the inmates are running the asylum in right wing circles. Moreover, it's easy for us non-Americans to talk shit about this incredulous situation. Sorry, but it's true. We don't have to try and figure out some "big tent strategy" for how to win over morons to find >50% of the vote in 2026/8. >The overwhelming majority of Democratic voters (91 percent) said Covid vaccines are “very” or “somewhat” safe for adults. But barely half of Republicans (52 percent) said the same. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45365 Posts
On August 11 2025 08:53 Gescom wrote: Amazing to me that there's even room for debate. What are we discussing? "How much of a fucking idiot is this guy on a scale of 1-10. A 9, or a 10?" That does appear to be the essence of most of this discussion, apart from the occasional person mistakenly calling RFK Jr. an expert. On August 11 2025 11:13 Razyda wrote: Honestly blasting RFK seems silly to me. Differences in food standards between Europe and US are a thing, and seems to me, for a reason, and for a while too. Now you got someone who is actually willing to do something about it, and you go mental because you dont like his administration. I mean you have the guy, who is actually willing to do something, but reaction is " nazi, fascist, maga, crazy brain worm dude". Obviously suit approving arsenic in food, would be better as, long as he was democrat. I think you need to reread the scientific and medical concerns brought up, because the core issues that people (ranging from random TL posters to the actual communities of experts) have with RFK Jr. aren't because he's a Nazi or because people don't like Trump's administration as a whole. He's extremely - and dangerously - wrong about a lot of things pertaining to health and human services, which is a problem since he's the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
On August 11 2025 07:45 BlackJack wrote: I wonder if that argument would work in reverse? If I said I like RFK because he's going to ban some of the artificial shit in food and you said he's harming vaccine uptake could I then reply "But we're not talking about vaccines here. We're talking about the artificial shit in our food." Sure, but you didn't say anything like that. You said you liked RFK because of the hypothetical deaths prevented by an imaginary stance you invented for him 20 years ago, that there's no evidence he even held. That's... absurd. It's very reasonable to draw attention to the FDA being slow and reluctant to change in the face of new evidence. It's not reasonable at all to claim that because of this, we need a quack to come and save us. Nobody knows what RFK would have done if Bush had gone mad and appointed him 20 years ago, but as you've already conceded, there's a non-zero chance it would have involved mercury. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On August 11 2025 11:25 Gescom wrote: The sanewashing continues. I'll never cease to be amazed. You're right. Except Jenny McCarthy and other granola goofs were widely ridiculed unanimously by the other 99.9% and were never in any position of authority, ever. It's not hard to dispute; Vermont, Massachusetts had 90% covid vax rates compared to 40% in the American South. What point are you trying to make? The current movement is very mainstream and is only grounded in high level political GRIFT. I don't think any implication was made about electability -- That's not what we're talking about -- other than the obvious observation that the inmates are running the asylum in right wing circles. Moreover, it's easy for us non-Americans to talk shit about this incredulous situation. Sorry, but it's true. We don't have to try and figure out some "big tent strategy" for how to win over morons to find >50% of the vote in 2026/8. >The overwhelming majority of Democratic voters (91 percent) said Covid vaccines are “very” or “somewhat” safe for adults. But barely half of Republicans (52 percent) said the same. Considering current COVID booster uptake rates are 20%~ it's reasonable to state that the majority of Democrats don't want this safe and effective vaccine either. And for good reason. If you're young and healthy there's little good reason to be getting annual COVID vaccines. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45365 Posts
On August 11 2025 11:13 BlackJack wrote: The modern day anti-vax movement was born in the liberal elite circles of southern California. The face of it was Jenny Mccarthy, Jim Carrey, and RFK who of course was also a life-long Democrat and came from Democratic party family royalty. He's also an environmental protection lawyer that's worked for the NRDC. Plenty of left-wing people in the anti-GMO, anti-synthetic pesticides camps. This is not a strictly conservative thing. Constantly outcasting people that then get folded into the conservative alliance is not a winning strategy. "Well good! We don't want them anyway!" they say, as they lose another election. If the next Democratic president appoints Jim Carrey to be the new U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, I think people should be upset. Gescom's post and WombaT's post weren't about trying to find the most effective way to develop a winning strategy in politics, and we should have professional standards for people in power anyway, based on what their job requires. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26411 Posts
On August 11 2025 11:13 BlackJack wrote: The modern day anti-vax movement was born in the liberal elite circles of southern California. The face of it was Jenny Mccarthy, Jim Carrey, and RFK who of course was also a life-long Democrat and came from Democratic party family royalty. He's also an environmental protection lawyer that's worked for the NRDC. Plenty of left-wing people in the anti-GMO, anti-synthetic pesticides camps. This is not a strictly conservative thing. Constantly outcasting people that then get folded into the conservative alliance is not a winning strategy. "Well good! We don't want them anyway!" they say, as they lose another election. I’m not a political strategist. So who loses what election isn’t really on me. The idea that the modern anti-vax push isn’t overwhelmingly right wing in leaning is preposterous. There may have initially been crossover with some specific individuals, or hippy alternative healing types, but it clearly mestasised into something else. You’re also so disconnected from what ‘the left’ is that you think that because RFK is a Kennedy, that he’s somehow of the left and people consider him thus. A man so, so left wing he’s serving in the Trump administration. Furthermore, much of your Covid posting was in bemoaning the wider left in swallowing various narratives. The left can’t simultaneously be the real anti-vaxxers when it suits, and the people zealously forcing vaccines at the same time. I mean can they? Am I taking crazy pills here? Is it just me folks or is this framing completely incoherent? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26411 Posts
On August 11 2025 12:07 BlackJack wrote: Considering current COVID booster uptake rates are 20%~ it's reasonable to state that the majority of Democrats don't want this safe and effective vaccine either. And for good reason. If you're young and healthy there's little good reason to be getting annual COVID vaccines. Sub 10% of men get regular prostrate exams so, I assume there’s little good reason for that too. Indeed probably half as good a reason by the ‘amount of people who do the thing’ metric. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On August 11 2025 12:36 WombaT wrote: Sub 10% of men get regular prostrate exams so, I assume there’s little good reason for that too. Indeed probably half as good a reason by the ‘amount of people who do the thing’ metric. You're making a very faulty conclusion. I'm not suggesting there's little good reason for young people to get COVID boosters because only 20% of people are getting them. It's the other way around. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On August 11 2025 12:24 WombaT wrote: I’m not a political strategist. So who loses what election isn’t really on me. The idea that the modern anti-vax push isn’t overwhelmingly right wing in leaning is preposterous. There may have initially been crossover with some specific individuals, or hippy alternative healing types, but it clearly mestasised into something else. You’re also so disconnected from what ‘the left’ is that you think that because RFK is a Kennedy, that he’s somehow of the left and people consider him thus. A man so, so left wing he’s serving in the Trump administration. Furthermore, much of your Covid posting was in bemoaning the wider left in swallowing various narratives. The left can’t simultaneously be the real anti-vaxxers when it suits, and the people zealously forcing vaccines at the same time. I mean can they? Am I taking crazy pills here? Is it just me folks or is this framing completely incoherent? You're doing a particularly poor job today at understanding me today. I didn't say that the modern anti-vax movement isn't overwhelmingly right-wing. I also didn't propose the left are "the real anti-vaxxers." | ||
|
Gescom
Canada3509 Posts
| ||
| ||
