199
‘Stakes are really high’: misinformation researcher changes tack for 2024 US election
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2024
199 points (98.1% liked)
politics
19107 readers
2920 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They 100% can. No power dynamic imbalance in the COVID case. Also, guarantee the employee signed a contract saying that the employer could fire them for just cause. Making the workplace unsafe is definitely just cause for that. And killing your fellow workers with a preventable disease sure sounds unsafe to me. And I know I'm repeating myself but you sure as shit ain't picking it up, but that's why you couldn't get unemployment benefits in the US if you were fired for not getting the jab. Because you were fired with just cause. Because noone was forced to get the jab. Because you could consent to it. The lady in your case literally could not give consent. You can argue all you want about it, but your shitty opinion doesn't change decades of legal precedent.
There's no power dynamic in losing your job? Glad to hear you also support zero protections on workers rights
Off topic. The injections did not stop the spread
There is no power dynamic imbalance brought about by your boss firing you for doing something unsafe. Hence why there has been literally 0 cases of workplaces being punished for firing employees who didn't get the vaccine.
And it's 100% on topic to mention that the disease was deadly and was literally killing people in many workplaces. It also reduced the spread, even if it didn't stop it. Cos it's really hard to spread a disease when you don't have it.
The same power dynamic balance is in play in both situations. Just admit it
Nope. Completely different. I've given you facts that support this. I suggest you do the same. Hell, I'll give you more. A boss who is in any kind of sexual relationship with a subordinate has way more power than they would over a subordinate who they were not having a relationship with (which does imply there is a power dynamic in play in all instances involving a boss and their employees. But that's not what you said. You said it was "the same"). And this can be proven by the multitude of cases where those bosses who've coerced their employees to have sex with them and then been charged. Like I said, literally 0 businesses have been punished for firing employees who didn't get the vaccine (and I've already told you why this is, because being fired for a safety related offence is just cause).
Also, if you are set in your belief that it isn't rape, why would you think that there is the same power imbalance? As far as your concerned, it's not even rape, so how could there be a power imbalance? And you're just gonna ignore the article that shows that vaccines slowed the transmission of COVID? That has a bunch of scientific studies referenced throughout? You are picking and choosing what you reply to, and trying to use that to seem smart. You're not, you couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag. Hell, I've seen 5yos make more convincing cases for an extra serve of icecream after dinner than you are making here...
That's a lot of words to dance around the fact that there's the same power dynamic in both situations. Just admit it already
It's a lot of words cos you didn't get the point when I pointed out how it was different with only a few words. Now, I asked you to support your claim with facts. You haven't. I'm going to assume that this means you can't prove it. Which means you're essentially admitting that you're wrong. Thanks. I knew spending time with you would eventually be satisfying, cos idiots like you generally make it painfully clear to everyone just idiotic you are.
People were forced to get the shot
Nope. They were given a choice. And like with most choices, there were repurcussions for that choice. But they still had the choice. Nobody put a gun to their head.
I'm still loving how your replies constantly ignore my pointing out your horseshit. You're so weak minded you can't even stay on topic. I didn't even mention the vaccine in my previous comment, and you hadn't mentioned it in your previous two. Could it be that it was the sole content of this latest comment of yours cos you can't keep up with the convo and can't defend your claims so you have to change the topic? Dear god, I hope you don't vote, nobody this dumb should have a say in how their country is run...
So was she. So no rape, right?
Dunno how I can make it any clearer without tattooing it to your forehead: She. Could. Not. Consent. Due. To. The. Power. Dynamic. We've also covered how the power dynamic in the rape example is wildly different to the dumbass retort I know you'll respond with that'll be along the lines of "so the same as COVID". That's been done to death. You're inability to understand this does not mean you are right. Sure, it means you're dumb as shit for continuing with this dumb as shit line of reasoning, but it doesn't change the fact that it is dumb as shit and thus you are wrong.
Neither could the other employee. They were both forced. Use your brain