• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

CEPS Well Hung Parliament (CEPS Social/Off Topic)

mal3volent said:
That's odd, I looked up the definition and it says

: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination

Seems much more objective and fair than what you said.
Click to expand...
Do you not understand what that means?
If you oppose mandatory vaccinations then you are pro-people having a choice.
Thanks for illustrating how manipulative language can confuse people.
 
JGrimez said:
Do you not understand what that means?
If you oppose mandatory vaccinations then you are pro-people having a choice.
Thanks for illustrating how manipulative language can confuse people.
Click to expand...
How is that different than the way it's always been? Anti vax has always meant opposing mandated vaccines.

I don't see your point honestly.
 
JGrimez said:
Do you not understand what that means?
If you oppose mandatory vaccinations then you are pro-people having a choice.
Thanks for illustrating how manipulative language can confuse people.
Click to expand...

Since the word we're determining is ANTI-vaxxer, I think it makes logical sense for the definition to include what anti-vaxxers are OPPOSED to.
 
deficiT said:
How is that different than the way it's always been? Anti vax has always meant opposing mandated vaccines.

I don't see your point honestly.
Click to expand...
huh???? No it wasn't. If you looked at the same dictionary entry 1-2 years ago, it did not say that.

According to that definition, I can take EVERY vaccine ever released on the vaccine schedule, both doses of the new covid vaccine PLUS a booster - and because I think that you should make your own choice with regards to vaccines - I can now be considered an anti-vaxxer.
 
alasdairm said:
i guess the irony of trump's naming his new social media network 'truth' is lost on him :)

alasdair
Click to expand...
Tbf it’s whole purpose is to be about censoring less, so an argument could be made. You still can’t criticize the chosen people so it’s ultimately just Twitter where right wingers are allowed to post about some wrong think topics.
 
JGrimez said:
huh???? No it wasn't. If you looked at the same dictionary entry 1-2 years ago, it did not say that.

According to that definition, I can take EVERY vaccine ever released on the vaccine schedule, both doses of the new covid vaccine PLUS a booster - and because I think that you should make your own choice with regards to vaccines - I can now be considered an anti-vaxxer.
Click to expand...
You can’t reason with most of these people. When you walk them through something and prove your case they just call you names. I do have some hope, I listen to a podcast called dark horse that features real liberals that look at things objectively etc
 
w01fg4ng said:
Tell me more
Click to expand...
We are at a point where it’s libertarian VS authoritarian rather than right VS left. Was listening to RFK jr and a Canadian doctor discuss this moments ago, basically the Overton window shifted and left the classical liberals behind. Brett wiestien on dark horse also goes into this at length. If you know these people, you likely consider them right wing? Actual liberals were very pro speech and individualists, two things that are now considered right wing. Shits sad, I would have 100% been a Democrat thirty years ago, as an anti establishmentarian.
 
"Liberalism" has long been about relatively unfettered capitalism, via free market ideology and related justifications. And really that's what "neoliberalism" is all about too, making sure that money keeps circulating around in the same coterie of overstuffed pockets via free-trade and all the rest of it. There's definitely real and significant continuity between "classical liberalism" and "neoliberalism" in that respect. So in that regard I don't really think that liberals have been abandoned, they still have a home in the Democratic Party, which does all it can to satiate wealthy interests. Then they can all pat themselves on the back and praise their commitment to the free market...hell Nancy Pelosi did it just recently, as a justification for politicians participating in the stock market!

There are also social/cultural elements (i.e. a support for democracy, freedom of expression, etc.) but...I consider those things to be of secondary importance compared to the core element of liberalism, which is economic imo. Everything else is just window-dressing but when shit gets real you see people's true colors...the so-called liberals screamed themselves hoarse for war in 1914, and they were all for muzzling those who were vocal in their opposition
 
Geophysicists appreciation during the Soviet rule of Russia

RFNoYIc.jpg
 
I can't be the only one who, during the Ketanji Brown Jackson hearings, hoped that one of the Republican Senators would break into song with "I'm sorry Ms Jackson, ewwwwwww, but I am for real!" (sang to the tune of Outkast's "Ms Jackson" of course)

Am I? lol Half the time in this political environment I half-expect stuff like that to actually happen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top