Page 1 of 8
Why only seatbelts?
Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2021 11:50 pm
by Gadianton
Usually I'm not short on explanations for right-wing hysteria, but I'm having a really hard time explaining this one. remdesivir and chloroquine have been pushed by the right at times as miracle cures. I recall my right-wing friend telling me the local hospital was experimenting with chloroquine -- this was in the early days of the scamdemic -- and that an 80+ year-old couple had been healed. I questioned the result and he got very angry, insisting chloroquine is "100% effective" and that I'm just a libertard. Now, unlike many on the right, he doesn't think the vaccines are a hoax. He got his two doses and he wears a mask also. However, he's very skeptical of both. He insists we know nothing about the virus and jokes about growing a third eye from vaccination. He briefly fell for the tracking conspiracies with the vaccines.
I was reminded of his inconsistency recently as I read the comments from the Saints at LDS Freedom forum rejecting the Prophet's revelation on vaccines and masks. Vaccines were trounced, but anti-virals were hoped for.
I just don't get it.
Both of the drugs aforementioned by name were legitimate avenues to investigate. The same institutions and persons that study and create anti-virals study and create vaccines. Trump himself launched Operation Warpspeed. Chloroquine's failure is particularly well understood, but faith in the drug among the right is unstoppable. Why is it that both big pharma and academia can do no right with vaccines in the eyes of the right wing, but can do no wrong with anti-virals? Why is there a conspiracy to push the one but suppress the other when the same institutions and people are responsible for either? Can't tracking devices and nanotech be installed by therapeutics?
There must be an answer. Paranoid Schizophrenics might not think rationally in ways that help a person survive, but a good psychiatrist can predict the kinds of reactions a schizophrenic will have in a given situation. I cannot explain, however, this disparity in thinking from within the worldview of the right as I understand it.
If there are any unhinged right-wingers posting on this board, I invite you to share your first-person experience with this phenomena.
Re: Why only seatbelts?
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2021 3:28 pm
by Lem
Getting back to the topic:
Gadianton wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 11:50 pm
… Why is it that both big pharma and academia can do no right with vaccines in the eyes of the right wing, but can do no wrong with anti-virals? Why is there a conspiracy to push the one but suppress the other when the same institutions and people are responsible for either? Can't tracking devices and nanotech be installed by therapeutics?
There must be an answer….
All I can think of is contrarianism. The vaccine is promoted so a contrarian must be against it. The therapeutics are not working, so a contrarian has to insist they are working and it’s a conspiracy. All points of a contrarian are only push backs against someone or something else, with no original thought.
Re: Why only seatbelts?
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2021 4:26 pm
by Res Ipsa
Gadianton wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 11:50 pm
Usually I'm not short on explanations for right-wing hysteria, but I'm having a really hard time explaining this one. remdesivir and chloroquine have been pushed by the right at times as miracle cures. I recall my right-wing friend telling me the local hospital was experimenting with chloroquine -- this was in the early days of the scamdemic -- and that an 80+ year-old couple had been healed. I questioned the result and he got very angry, insisting chloroquine is "100% effective" and that I'm just a libertard. Now, unlike many on the right, he doesn't think the vaccines are a hoax. He got his two doses and he wears a mask also. However, he's very skeptical of both. He insists we know nothing about the virus and jokes about growing a third eye from vaccination. He briefly fell for the tracking conspiracies with the vaccines.
I was reminded of his inconsistency recently as I read the comments from the Saints at LDS Freedom forum rejecting the Prophet's revelation on vaccines and masks. Vaccines were trounced, but anti-virals were hoped for.
I just don't get it.
Both of the drugs aforementioned by name were legitimate avenues to investigate. The same institutions and persons that study and create anti-virals study and create vaccines. Trump himself launched Operation Warpspeed. Chloroquine's failure is particularly well understood, but faith in the drug among the right is unstoppable. Why is it that both big pharma and academia can do no right with vaccines in the eyes of the right wing, but can do no wrong with anti-virals? Why is there a conspiracy to push the one but suppress the other when the same institutions and people are responsible for either? Can't tracking devices and nanotech be installed by therapeutics?
There must be an answer. Paranoid Schizophrenics might not think rationally in ways that help a person survive, but a good psychiatrist can predict the kinds of reactions a schizophrenic will have in a given situation. I cannot explain, however, this disparity in thinking from within the worldview of the right as I understand it.
If there are any unhinged right-wingers posting on this board, I invite you to share your first-person experience with this phenomena.
I think you ask a fair question, and, of course, you won't get any answers of substance. Because there are no answers of substance. We're seeing the end of processes that have been ongoing at least since the Eishenhower administration. The culmination of those processes, at least to date, is one of two major political parties being unable to say what it stands for other than "whatever the strongman says." It's a movement that is anti-logic, anti-reason, anti-expertise, anti-intellectual anti-evidence and anti-"left." These folks accept anti-virals because Trump and their other opinion leaders speak of them positively and haven't tried to demonize them by tying them to "the left." Then entire movement is grounded in fear of the other, so the only "consistency" they need is consistent opposition to whatever it is they think the enemy wants.
Re: Why only seatbelts?
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2021 9:25 pm
by ajax18
I think you ask a fair question, and, of course, you won't get any answers of substance. Because there are no answers of substance. We're seeing the end of processes that have been ongoing at least since the Eishenhower administration. The culmination of those processes, at least to date, is one of two major political parties being unable to say what it stands for other than "whatever the strongman says." It's a movement that is anti-logic, anti-reason, anti-expertise, anti-intellectual anti-evidence and anti-"left." These folks accept anti-virals because Trump and their other opinion leaders speak of them positively and haven't tried to demonize them by tying them to "the left." Then entire movement is grounded in fear of the other, so the only "consistency" they need is consistent opposition to whatever it is they think the enemy wants.
I guess you didn't see Trump get booed for telling his supporters at a rally to get vaccinated.
Beyond that, why would anyone on the right not trust unelected government bureaucrats on the left? Think about it for a second. I know both you and Gad can figure this out on your own.
Re: Why only seatbelts?
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2021 10:23 pm
by canpakes
ajax18 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 9:25 pm
I guess you didn't see Trump get booed for telling his supporters at a rally to get vaccinated.
Yes, and the community over at Great Awakwning have already been ruminating on that occurrence. It’s just more 4D chess, my friend -
The way that he responded to the booing was pretty telling. He knows how we feel about the shots. He even waved his hands around and said “I know, I know…” before he continued on. He’s fully aware of the censorship about the vaxx side effects and deaths. Honestly, at this point, I think he might be testing us. The more he preaches, the louder we boo. I think he wants us to question even him, so that we do our own research and don’t believe a damn thing anyone tells us without know the facts - this is how we got to this point in our history: by trusting and not verifying. We can’t allow it to ever happen again, and maybe this is a way that he’s challenging us to see if we’re fully awake to the situation at hand.
…either that or he wants to kill us with a deadly vaxx. I choose the former.
Astute observation sir!
Trump doesn't fumble words when he speaks, very deliberate. So if he's suggesting taking the vax, you better believe there's a reason for it... And it's not that we should get the vax.
Yes sir,,,I was just about to make this observation
Bet he feels like a proud papa Now he keep optics as they can't say Trump said don't take AND he knows people can choose for themselves
Would love to see this spread where he says " get vaxed" and the crowd KNOWS to boo loudly and then he says something like "But as always you have the FREEDOM of choice", then the crowd starts chanting Freedom, Freedom
You know like both sides know thier role, WWE style.....would be sweet.
This is my favorite comment, though -
President Trump knows that it doesn't matter what he says about the death serum, we wont be taking it. His words on this matter sway nobody, he is well aware of this, and then he follows it up pointing out that it is our right to choose.
I believe that the death serum is definitely killing and maiming people but I also believe that is not what it is intended to do at this point. The dead and injured now are only a happy side effect and sacrifice to Moloch.
The graphene oxides are toxic to humans but also provide electrical conductivity that the luciferians are looking to exploit. This is their experiment to figure out how much we can take, hence the boosters. They intend to transform the human race into a man/machine hybrid that is easily controlled through 5G and the like. Only then will they fully implement thier depopulation agenda.
The goal of the luciferians is a couple million elite humans at the top, a few hundred million transhumans they fully control working night and day for thier comfort and then the rest of us dead. But that goal is still further down the road and in the testing stages.
Re: Why only seatbelts?
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2021 11:09 pm
by Res Ipsa
ajax18 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 9:25 pm
I think you ask a fair question, and, of course, you won't get any answers of substance. Because there are no answers of substance. We're seeing the end of processes that have been ongoing at least since the Eishenhower administration. The culmination of those processes, at least to date, is one of two major political parties being unable to say what it stands for other than "whatever the strongman says." It's a movement that is anti-logic, anti-reason, anti-expertise, anti-intellectual anti-evidence and anti-"left." These folks accept anti-virals because Trump and their other opinion leaders speak of them positively and haven't tried to demonize them by tying them to "the left." Then entire movement is grounded in fear of the other, so the only "consistency" they need is consistent opposition to whatever it is they think the enemy wants.
I guess you didn't see Trump get booed for telling his supporters at a rally to get vaccinated.
Beyond that, why would anyone on the right not trust unelected government bureaucrats on the left? Think about it for a second. I know both you and Gad can figure this out on your own.
Nope, I didn't miss it. He reacted to the booing by saying something like "that's okay, you've got to have your freedoms." And then said that he "happened" to get the vaccine. Then he pivoted to masks, where he could throw red meat to the crowd.
If Trump had come out from the start endorsing the vaccines, promoting the vaccines, encouraging people to get vaccines, getting vaccinated himself on television, we wouldn't have the vaccine resistance we do today. He laid the groundwork for vaccine resistance for months -- even if he wanted to, he couldn't change it in one, weak endorsement in a speech.
As to the answer to your second question. First, being elected has nothing to do with evidence for the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Second, being a bureaucrat has nothing to do with the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Third, being liberal has nothing to do with the safety an efficacy of vaccines.
You and your fellow travelers don't trust unelected, liberal bureaucrats (even when they happen to be highly educated and trained experts in their field) because you've been fed a steady diet of BS for decades. You distrust because you've been told to distrust, and you've happily complied.
Re: Why only seatbelts?
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:00 am
by Gadianton
Ajax wrote:Beyond that, why would anyone on the right not trust unelected government bureaucrats on the left? Think about it for a second. I know both you and Gad can figure this out on your own.
Fair enough, Ajax. Let's go back to the problem from the OP. Was it not the same unelected government bureaucrats on the left who approved chloroquine for emergency COVID-19 treatments in March 2020 as it has been for getting the vaccine out?
Why is it that your
intellectual peers and your
ideological peers can't believe enough in chloroquine, but boo Trump off the stage for suggesting the vaccine?
There are two ways into an epithelial cell, a side door and a garage door. Chloroquine blocks the side door entry. At the time, the garage door wasn't known about, and so it made sense to give it a shot. But now that we know? Is it as Lem suggests that because science now knows why it doesn't work, your friends call "BS" and take that as a cue for near magic powers? If so, why was it ever believed in the first place, since it was roughly the same scientists who discovered it effective for malaria? Why did your peers believe the scientifico-government complex in the first place -- for chloroquine? And why do they believe it with unbridled optimism, whereas they can muster nothing but disdain when the same complex produces a vaccine?
Re: Why only seatbelts?
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2021 8:30 pm
by ajax18
Why is it that your intellectual peers and your ideological peers can't believe enough in chloroquine, but boo Trump off the stage for suggesting the vaccine?
I think what they're against is mandatory vaccines. Hannity's advice has always been the same. Consult with your doctor and see what is the best option for you. In my case getting vaccinated, while being an unnecessary hoop for me to jump through, made sense since the chances of it hurting me were almost as slim as COVID putting me in the hospital. Now if I were a pregnant woman, perhaps I'd have chosen a different path.
But I think stiffer opposition to vaccine passports actually lies with the left. Would you be surprised to see an article in Salon of a white man asking a black man to show his vaccine passport as demonstration of systemic racism in America? While it's not talked about, there's a significant number of African American hard left Democrats who are against vaccine passports as well. And quite a few of them have refused the vaccine.
Re: Why only seatbelts?
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2021 8:34 pm
by Res Ipsa
Do you have any evidence for what you say is not talked about?
And it’s clear that vaccines themselves are the issue, not just passports.
ETA: Oh, I get it. It’s Hannity who is now defending black peoples right to die from COVID (but not, of course, to vote).
https://www.foxnews.com/media/hannity-n ... t-protocol
Re: Why only seatbelts?
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:15 am
by Gadianton
I think what they're against is mandatory vaccines
Uh huh. Did you read the quote from Canpakes? Have you read the posts of your comrade who has now left the forum for good? Or really, are you paying any attention at all?
I do give you credit in one sense. Like Mormon apologists who re-interpret beliefs to be something that they never were, you're looking for a way to rescue your peers as not anti-science. This shows that you're as much a prisoner to science as we are, and can't even bring yourself to completely lie about it.
So, that's all you know, a few points in your favor, and gives me hope that you're redeemable.