Older people are are more likely to vote for Trump AND to die from COVID. Rural areas have worse health care than cities and are also more likely to vote Trump.
The piece was about "disinformation" and "misinformation".
2/ The piece acknowledges this scientific flaw, but instead of reporting the age-adjusted analysis, publishes instead the unadjusted analysis that looks much worse.
3/ It also twists the numbers on the unvaccinated. The source the NPR article cites says 59% of Republican (and Republican leading) claim to have received at least one shot.
In comparison, only 50% of blacks have been vaccinated, according to the same source.
4/ Blaming groups by their vaccination rates is a political act rather than a scientific one.
Here are the links of the above screenshots if you want look more into this.
5/ The article repeats the trope of famous right-wing vaccine denialist dying from covid. Such anecdotes are anti-science. It validates what right-wingers do, anecdotes of vaccinated people dying from covid ... or vaccines causing problems.
What matters is statistics.
6/ The article is unable to distinguish between statements of opinion and statements of fact. Worrying about government exaggerating numbers is a valid opinion. Whether vaccines contain microchips is a statement of fact.
7/ Yes, yes, believing "it's a vast government conspiracy" is crazy, but that's not what this thread is about. The above tweet is about the inability of "arbiters of truth" being able to distinguish between "statements of fact" and "statements of opinion".
7/ Moreover, the government is provably loose with facts. The current CDC webpage on vaccine "myths" still says viral-vector DNA doesn't enter the nucleus, which is factually false. cdc.gov/coronavirus/20…
8/ Yes, yes, I'm being a bit unfair to the CDC. It's mostly due to an editing mistake. And it's not important (viral-vector vaccines still don't "alter your DNA"). But it's still evidence the CDC is trying to shape opinion rather than inform.
9/ Covid vaccines are clearly in your personal interest, of course. This thread isn't about the covid, but misinformation. It's not right-wingers spewing misinformation who are to blame, but those who claim to be arbiters of truth doing such a bad job. npr.org/sections/healt…
10/ This NPR article is clearly designed to stroke the prejudice of its left-leaning audience. What it actually does is serve as proof that the media like NPR cannot be trusted. It doesn't seek to bridge the divide.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Trump is pure evil, the brutality of his answers appeals to ignorant brutes who reject all civilized norms.
But the yang to Trump's yin is a liberal elite like Rosen whose comfortable with the civilized norm of lying politicians who play this game of deceitful debates.
To be fair, Biden (and Obama and Bush before him) have stood up for important democratic principles, the ones that Trump flatly reject. But still, the system has gotten crusty. There's no reason to take presidential debates seriously as Rosen does.
It's the same as all Ben Cotton's analysis's, looking for things he doesn't understand and insisting these are evidence of something bad, that the only explanation is his conspiracy-theory.
I can't explain the anomalies he finds, either, but in my experience as a forensics expert, I know that just because I can't explain it doesn't mean there isn't a simple explanation.
For example, he points to log messages about mismatched versions. I know from experience that such messages are very common, I even see them in software that I write. It's the norm that when you build something from a lot of different software components, that they will not be perfectly synchronized.
That he would make such claims based solely on log messages of mismatched versions proves that he's really not competent -- or at least, very partisan willing to be misrepresent things.
In particular, I disagree with his description of these files. In the C#/.NET environments, creationg of new executables is common. In particular, these are represent web server files. It's quite plausible that as the user reconfigures the website, that these executables will be recreated.
I don't know for certain. I'd have to look at Dominion in more detail. I just know that if any new C#/.NET executables appear in the system that they are not automatically new software.
The certification process looks haphazard and sloppy to me, so it's easy for me to believe that uncertified machines were used in elections.
But nothing in Ben Cotton's report suggests to me that this happened. He's not looking for an explanation for the anomalies he finds, he already has an explanation, and is looking for things that the ignorant will believe is proof of that explanation.
This is an incredibly important article and Charlotte Cowles (@charlottecowles) should be praised for writing it. Everybody should read it.
People laughing at her for getting scammed are missing the point, such as what the following picture does. thecut.com/author/charlot…
No, I wouldn't have gotten scammed like her. For one thing, I believe every phone call is a scam, either a criminal one, or some vendor trying to waste my time getting me to pay for things.
But I hate to think what I might fall victim to.
The only real defense is reading articles like the one above. Forget advice about what you should/shouldn't do told to you in a vacuum, instead, read about such stories about what sorts of scams actually happen in the real world.
🧵1/n
I'm trolled by this thread. So here's my response.
But before that, I want to point out that it's by questions that we come to understand the world. There are no stupid questions. Well, there are, but it's by asking them that we get smarter.
Also, there is a lot of disagreement among economists and bankers about the cause of post-pandemic inflation and what best to do about it.
There is also a lot of disagreement among the podcaster/pundit classes. Most answers to this question come from people regurgitating their favorite podcaster/pundit.
2/n The thing that trolls me is this tweet in that thread. They say "Understood", but I don't understand, because they mention two largely unrelated concepts: short-term inflation and long-term inflation.
It's been know since Roman times that creating money causes long-term inflation. They didn't have the sophisticated understanding we have now, but they did notice that when they debased their coins (reducing gold content, putting more coins in circulation) that the value of the coin went down and consequently, the number of coins need to pay for the same good increased.
Short-term inflation can be caused by a number of things, such as the business cycle overheating, or economic shocks, both of which we've seen post-pandemic.
Such short-term inflation is then followed by short-term deflation, as it needs to bounce back to the long-term rate. For example, in 1932 we saw 10% deflation. This is considered more damaging than inflation, because it causes people to hoard cash under their mattresses, because they know that a year later, it'll be worth 10% more. In other words, deflation causes what's essentially a Ponzi scheme.
Since then, we've largely "tamed" the business cycle. Raising interest rates at the peak prevents short-term inflation, lowering interest rates after the recession prevents short-term deflation. But raising interest rates can trigger recessions, so people
So this tweet below seems to confuse two different concepts, raising interest rates to lower short-term inflation, and the cause of long-term inflation (printing money). By "Understood" I think they mean they've heard of such things, not that they understand such things.
3/n This tweet continues the confusion. The central-bank doesn't raise interest rates to combat long-term inflation (increases in money supply), primarily short-term inflation (overheating, shocks).
With that said, the money supply has increased. The major economies printed money during the pandemic to avoid a collapse of the economy, and that's going to result in long-term inflation.
This is seen in the two graphs below for the UK and the US.
The rough consensus among economists is that three things contribute to the current inflation: this increase in money supply, economic shocks caused by the pandemic, and the post-pandemic pent-up-demand overheating the economy. I say "rough" because I haven't found any good papers proving this. I suspect they don't really know and are just guessing.
Raising interest rates should deal with the two short-term contributors to inflation.
The point is: the person confuses long-term inflation (where historically, interest rate manipulation isn't used to deal with it) and short-term inflation (handled by interest-rate hikes).
You can't live debate crazy, they will always win.
Live debate is just performance art. Somebody will make some new claim nobody has heard of before, and it'll be impossible to refute without having the time to go research what they just said. "Samuelsson's study from late 2021… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
For example, to prove my point, I opened the podcast (open.spotify.com/episode/3DQfcT…) and skipped forward to a random location, around 37 minutes into the thing (I can't bear to watch all 3 hours and debunk point by point).
I forget to mention the subtext. The Vice article in question also contains written debunking of some of RFK's claims, and links to other written debunking of other claims.
The premise here is that RFK/Rogan are refusing a written response, and are demanding instead a live… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
John Cusack (just a movie star) advocates for censorship of the press while simultaneously being on the board of the "Freedom of the Press Foundation".
FYI: we all have the right to foment coups based on provable lies, that's what the "free speech" and the "First Amendment" say.
Fair. It's not polite calling people "just a movie star", implying that they are lightweights, that their political opinions have only the same sophistication as the average movie star.
Your "principles" are the things you defend even when doing so helps your opponents. If you only defend them when it helps your side, then the thing you are defending is your "side", not your "principles".