People with large platforms should use them responsibly. That's not virtue signaling, it's actual virtue. Some people seem not to be able to tell the difference.
Btw it's weird that Tucker claims a news channel has no business promoting the vaccine when he hardly goes one night without having a one-sided anti-vaccine segment. His problem isn't that a channel takes a position, but that they aren't selling the position he is.
and at some point, someone has to point out that this is a lot like rich liberals that advocate for gun control and less policing while having paid security. Advocating for things that will hurt their audiences while they themselves won't be affected.
And that's why they won't answer the vaccination question. Not because it's some super private information, but because then they would have to admit they are selling their audiences junk that they don't believe & would never use to justify risking themselves or their families.
It's easy for the rich celebrity liberal in a gated community to advocate cutting policing for poor minority neighborhoods. Just as easy for vaccinated rich news hosts to tell audiences that trust them that they should risk a deadly virus instead of a relatively safe vaccine.
That's all I need to say about that. You guys should know better.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This article is so bad that it's actually painful to read.
CRT isn't taught in schools, but also Republicans are trying to ban it from being taught and it's actually just the history of racism and slavery.
Just awful gaslighting.
This is definitely my favorite part. They attack the original Texas "anti-CRT" bill in one paragraph and then misleadingly attack Texas for proposing to remove a requirement that was only put in place in that original bill in the next.
Level of chutzpah and dishonesty is really something here. Again, this "requirement" was only put in place in June by the Republican anti-CRT bill that Ifill and others were railing against. Now they are using a slight adjustment to the law they opposed as proof of wrongdoing.
To explain: In June, Texas Republicans passed an anti-CRT bill (HB3979) that is set to become law in Sept. That law, which critics on the left falsely suggested was whitewashing history, included a ton of specific examples that were listed as "essential" parts of the curriculum.
After passage, some TX education officials and R's pointed out those specific examples had a ton of overlap with already existing standards (TEKS) and that all of those things are mandatory (instead of optional/suggested).
You will be shocked by the fact that you do not have this right, but I’m sure your dishonest framing will be a great relief for the millions of Americans now being victimized by growing crime rates.
What happened with the police brutality movement was a lot like what happened with MeToo. It started with a good effort to expose some people doing very bad things, but then it was in a constant search for more villains to the point where the targets went way beyond that.
Police officers aren't quitting across the country because of the Chauvin verdict. They are quitting because they saw the narrative go from "we must hold bad police officers accountable" to "all police officers are bad".
He did this by pointing to places that had huge vaccine rollouts still having cases grow for the first few weeks/month.
Thing is that those growing cases weren't among people getting vaccinated, but he ignored that fact (not opinion!) to keep his conspiracy going.
Even someone w/ just common sense would say if vaccines (that don't have the virus btw) were causing cases, then more shots should = more cases. Instead, as vaccine rollout ramped up, cases fell drastically. He never bothered to address that & just kept repeating his claim.
So purely by statistics, at least some of that 200M were likely to die within a month of getting a shot. Esp. since we focused shots early on the elderly.
VAERS system gets a lot of questionable info/reports, but since this is an unprecedented campaign with UAE vaccines...
Health officials are required to check if people who died were recently vaccinated. That doesn't usually happen. If some random person had a heart attack in 2019, no one would ask if he just got a flu vaccine 3 weeks earlier. That's why it's a shift from previous data.
1) Vaccines are safe and effective. People that keep spreading misinformation suggesting otherwise are bad.
2) WH shouldn't be dictating for social media companies to censor speech. Even bad speech.
If they want to provide good info that can be shared to counter? Great.
3) Fact that vaccines are safe and very effective means that those that are vaccinated don't need to spend their time freaking out about the unvaccinated. Better that more people get vaccinated & will reduce risk further, but it shouldn't hinder vaccinated from moving forward.
4) The truth is there is hesitancy on vaccines across the political spectrum. On the right, it is being fueled by bad actors making it seem like vaccination is something being pushed by the left. But you also have hesitancy among minority groups & elite liberals on the left.