Agree on censorship and the FDA 2096 request. The Maddie de Garay story is tough. If your news is not of the right you simply aren't going to engage that story. I was avoiding all human interest stories about tragedy both of infection and side effects as I don't want that imagery in my head. I'm sure such stories exist for safe vacci…
Agree on censorship and the FDA 2096 request. The Maddie de Garay story is tough. If your news is not of the right you simply aren't going to engage that story. I was avoiding all human interest stories about tragedy both of infection and side effects as I don't want that imagery in my head. I'm sure such stories exist for safe vaccines as well. Between the ideological divide and the conflation with anti-vaxxers which have a stigma going way back, it simply doesn't register on many on the left.
I wouldn't expect Fox viewers to be swayed by tragic stories by CNN on young parents killed by the virus.
Your right. That is the pertinent issue the story reveals which I'm not sure I realized in those clear terms.
You know I almost showed this story to my wife yesterday but decided not to. It felt like it would have been unfair of me. It would be like here arguing with me by pointing to awful stories of 40-year-old Dad's that died because they figured they were healthy to try to get me boosted. I don't think she knows of the story at all. Which gets back to the point that certain stories simply don't reach everybody. They are outside of their respective Overton window.
I'd argue that there is no "Overton window" for an actually moral person, who is always open to the truth, however uncomfortable.
We are so used to this epidemic of people who don't really care for the truth that we cut people way too much slack, and that that is actually near the heart of our problems. If we stood up for proper standards, then that would lead the way. But *this* is too far outside many otherwise decent people's "Overton window" (which again, should not exist).
Agree on censorship and the FDA 2096 request. The Maddie de Garay story is tough. If your news is not of the right you simply aren't going to engage that story. I was avoiding all human interest stories about tragedy both of infection and side effects as I don't want that imagery in my head. I'm sure such stories exist for safe vaccines as well. Between the ideological divide and the conflation with anti-vaxxers which have a stigma going way back, it simply doesn't register on many on the left.
I wouldn't expect Fox viewers to be swayed by tragic stories by CNN on young parents killed by the virus.
The pertinent issue isn't that someone took a risk on the vaccine and lost, it's that Pfizer/FDA covered up the outcome.
https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/fda-buries-data-on-seriously-injured
Your right. That is the pertinent issue the story reveals which I'm not sure I realized in those clear terms.
You know I almost showed this story to my wife yesterday but decided not to. It felt like it would have been unfair of me. It would be like here arguing with me by pointing to awful stories of 40-year-old Dad's that died because they figured they were healthy to try to get me boosted. I don't think she knows of the story at all. Which gets back to the point that certain stories simply don't reach everybody. They are outside of their respective Overton window.
I'd argue that there is no "Overton window" for an actually moral person, who is always open to the truth, however uncomfortable.
We are so used to this epidemic of people who don't really care for the truth that we cut people way too much slack, and that that is actually near the heart of our problems. If we stood up for proper standards, then that would lead the way. But *this* is too far outside many otherwise decent people's "Overton window" (which again, should not exist).