It's only fair to point out that Biden is also racist AF. (AF= as ... can't be mentioned on AN, because we're nurses and we don't swear, ever).
The Omicron variant has so far been detected in South Africa, Botswana, Israel, Belgium, Hong Kong, UK, Germany, Italy, and Czechia. But of those countries the US has implemented travel bans on only two of those countries; South Africa and Botswana. In addition to those two, travel bans have been enacted for eSwatini, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, and Zimbabwe, even though no cases of Omicron have been detected there.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
2 minutes ago, Cclm said:
Discredit the source/person? Well sounds allot like propaganda technique.
We didn't discredit the source...the people who analyzed and compared media outlets for accuracy and bias ranked their credibility. Pointing out that a media outlet is known for inaccurate reporting is decidedly NOT a propaganda technique.
His media platform is known for inaccuracy, significant right wing bias and intentionally inflammatory language. There are better, more credible sources for accurate and current news and events.
I know he's quite bias about LGBTQ. And that's his right. I donot think he discriminates against them tho. Just uses insensitive language. He's a very devout Jewish and follows it closely. Unfortunatelyhe doesn't approve of LGBTQ. . He says things like biological sex is real. I do not disagree with him. However he can say it condecending.
Just now, toomuchbaloney said:
Which what do I frequent? Are you talking about media accuracy comparison charts?
Tell me something factual and moderate. Left leaning of course. I want to read.
We didn't discredit the source...the people who analyzed and compared media outlets for accuracy and bias ranked their credibility. Pointing out that a media outlet is known for inaccurate reporting is decidedly NOT a propaganda technique.
No I know but going after the person with off the cuff insults is kinda propaganda. Doscrediting the person presenting it instead of the source itself. I do it too sometimes.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
4 minutes ago, Cclm said:
No I know but going after the person with off the cuff insults is kinda propaganda. Doscrediting the person presenting it instead of the source itself. I do it too sometimes.
No, it's not propaganda. It's a style of chat and online interaction. When people offer up content from media outlets known to be biased, inaccurate and inflammatory they are discrediting themselves.
We've spent a few years now listening to conservatives try to discredit all manner of media and media consumers with indiscriminate shouts of FAKE NEWS. Now, you seem to be saying that it's not okay to criticize a media source.
I know he's quite bias about LGBTQ. And that's his right. I donot think he discriminates against them tho. Just uses insensitive language. He's a very devout Jewish and follows it closely. Unfortunatelyhe doesn't approve of LGBTQ. . He says things like biological sex is real. I do not disagree with him. However he can say it condecending.
Tell me something factual and moderate. Left leaning of course. I want to read.
He's "quite bias about LGBTQ" but he doesn't discriminate against them? How is that possible?
He's "quite bias about LGBTQ" but he doesn't discriminate against them? How is that possible?
I think I understand what you mean. He is most certainly not polite. He says he doesn't care about feeling. Fortunately or unfortunately, people are entitled to their thought and opinions. He's a opinion person so he gives his. I think his religion has allot to do with his beliefs. I just watched him tell Dave Ruben who is gay that if invited he would not go to his gay wedding. Really? So stupid. Oh but he might go to his anniversary party. Dave didn't seem to be too upset about it.
I just noticed my autocorrect flags gay as incorrect spelling! WTH? Anyways
I've only looked into him closely tonight. However I haven't seen him say anything blatantly hateful or enticing harm against anyone who is LGBTQ or saying anything crass homophobic(like slurs and such). I do not appreciate his approach but I do agree with things like biological sex that type of stuff. There is a much better ways to say your opinions than the way he does forsure. I'm not sure if what he does is discriminating tho.
He does seem very educated. But an a hole forsure!! Like the smart kid at school who thought he was above everyone else not realizing no body cared! LOL.
In terms of Fauci, he's a moron and should step down, if he refuses to do that he should be terminated.
Technically, he's not a moron, supposedly there is a difference between being smart and intelligent, he's clearly one but not the other, I can't remember which because I'm apparently also one but not the other.
Basically the idea that there's a difference between being smart and intelligent is that while someone might be able to understand how HIV drug trials work, they might also not be able to understand concepts that the rest of us might consider more basic, like if someone sneezes in your face that could potentially spread respiratory viruses.
Early on in the spread of Covid there was a common argument, put forth by Fauci and the NIH as a whole, that Covid probably spread primarily by 'surface vectors'. That someone would touch your groceries then you would touch your groceries and then touch your face and then you'd get Covid.
How Coronovirus variants spread, including pandemic strains, was already thoroughly studied prior to Covid. And not surprisingly it was well established that Coronaviruses spread primarily from respiratory tract to respiratory tract, and that they only could spread within a water droplet, a dry coronavirus is no longer viable.
Even though any reasonably intelligent nurse you spoke to could have pointed out he was wrong, he continued to point out for a concerningly long time that masks were unlikely to reduce the spread of Covid.
Then came the Wuhan lab ***. He never claimed that the lab was engaging in research the NIH wasn't aware of, what he claimed was that the NIH went through reasonable steps to ensure the safety of conducting research at Wuhan, they did not, instead they focuses on changing the definition of "gain of function" testing, as a result of his role in this he should clearly face criminal charges. (and that assumes the Wuhan lab didn't have any role in the spread of Covid-19, if it did the Fauci should face Capital punishment).
And then there's the "I am science" ***. Once he made that argument then that's it, he's done, he's clearly no longer a legitimate scientist.
And I get the whole reluctance to side with Fauci given the alternative. I've had multiple people tell me that Fauci is first-and-foremost a child trafficker, that he invented Covid-19 to facilitate his harvesting of Adrenochrome from children. I get the reflexive response that between siding with the Adrenochrome theory and Fauci it makes more sense to side with Fauci, but overall there's clearly more justification to a side that's in between those two.
toomuchbaloney
16,029 Posts
We didn't discredit the source...the people who analyzed and compared media outlets for accuracy and bias ranked their credibility. Pointing out that a media outlet is known for inaccurate reporting is decidedly NOT a propaganda technique.