It’s very interesting to contrast the styles of the two town halls last night, and the differences between the moderators. Guthrie interrogated Trump. From what I saw, Stephanopoulos just had a friendly conversation with Biden.
How do you censor the guy who’s lining your pocket?
If it hasn’t been obvious until now — and it has — it should be obvious to everyone that social media has too much power. They are not neutral platforms, as the law currently defines them. They clearly have an agenda, and should be treated that way.
It’s perfectly fine for them to have an agenda, but they can’t have an agenda and at the same time get an exemption for being a neutral platform. But that’s the current situation.
Why? Because they contribute tons of money to the candidates.
This is a major problem with our system. How can you believe that a politician will vote honestly on an issue when he knows that voting one way makes him rich, while voting the other way makes him lose his job?
The proper way to respond when someone calls you a racist
Joe Rogan #1538 – Douglas Murray
If you have time in your life to listen to a 2.5 hour podcast, I recommend Joe Rogan’s interview with Douglas Murray. They spend a lot of time on black lives matter, antifa, woke culture and the possible end of the west. It’s very interesting.
Is “the science” on masks and lockdowns about to flip again?
At first we were told not to wear masks. Then masks became a cause celebre. And now I hear that more and more scientists are saying they’re useless at best.
Same with lockdowns. We were told it was the only way, and aren’t those Swedes stupid? But now we’re hearing they cause more harm than help.
It’s plain as day that this has primarily been a political and not a scientific issue. That’s both good and to be expected. Public policy is a political matter. It should be informed by science, but scientists can’t set public policy. It’s not their area of expertise.
But “the science” has been shifting around a lot, and most of the media went all in on masks and lockdowns. Some alternative media went completely the other direction. Both sides claim to be “following the science.” Were they really?
More importantly, since this has become such an emotional, partisan issue, will people be able to change their minds if (when) the science changes?
“Following the science” requires you to hold things somewhat loosely, since “the science” adapts as we learn new facts. But many people have become so dogmatic about this stuff that it will be hard for them to change.