Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Dwarvenhobble]

You don't think that having a new Superman after 80 years and that Superman having a love interest is newsworthy because non-canonical alternant reality Communist Superman written 18 years ago didn't and she's already dead in an alternant video game timeline?

What world do you live in? Like, shit man, Batman's dated Wonder Woman and had sex with Batgirl, so why report on his Catwoman wedding?

You know, what? No. This is the shit I'm talking about. Y'all weird nerds only whine about the LGBT shit and you find the flimsiest fucking things to talk about. There being a new prime continuity Superman is worth reporting on. His having a love interest is worth reporting on. You only care because it's LGBT

So remember when they made headlines about Superman the dictator of one of the Earths?
How about Superman son of Zod?
The DC timeline gets shook up so often and multiverses collide etc etc that it's not been 80 years of Superman at all lol

Yeh Batman did date Wonder Woman and have sex with Batgirl and those weren't spread across the news. Though Batman's cock was at one point thanks to DC's black label.

Hell wasn't the last new Superman and Asian guy?

 

[ObsidianJones]

I hold somewhat different standards for regular Joe Bloggs reviews vs professional critics. If they expected a documentary and got a puff piece bit akin to an extended PR campaign then fair enough for them to bash it.

It's not like this is the Rotten Tomatoes critic score review or something this is meant to be the user score review on IMDB where users can submit their own reviews and we live in the age where pure subjectivity in reviews has been pushed with the claim "All reviews are subjective" rightfully or wrongfully to push the idea of talking about whatever people want. Thus according to professional criticism spheres I could totally criticise Brutal Legend for not having a pro environmental message where Eddie drives round in an electric smart car not a supped up hot rod. It's the modern standard brought in coming home to roost in a "If you can't beat them and convince them why their methods are stupid, prove it to them."

Also in the case of some of the Fauci reviews it does sound like they could be Left Wingers upset he failed to do more as such or as good a job as they'd have liked.

Again, that is subjective.

And I get that's where most people want to leave it at, because they can never be wrong. But to actually say someone failed (which a lot of people are doing), you have to have a chain. You have to take the subject, list the subject's actual power over the situation, and then see how he went about it.

Now, the subject once again has no love from me. I already stated my reasons. But I also recognize his limitations. Trump tried to take over the cdc to edit the conversation about Covid, what could Fauci do? Tell me in his position, what powers were afforded to him to prevent that from happening. Just give me one avenue he had. If you can answer this, backed up with proof and evidence that it was in his power to battle the United States Government itself and the way they wanted to spin a deadly pandemic all by himself, I'll totally apologize and join the Fauci hate train. Because in doing that, you would have proved that he actually did mess this all up.

However, if you can't, and you'll do something like ignore this part or speak around it without giving actual evidence or proof that Fauci had the capability of going against Trump and his adminstration... you're then proving that Fauci didn't have the power to do anything but merely giving suggestions. And that the onus of how the pandemic was handled sits squarely on the shoulders of the Policy Makers. Which, once again, would be Trump and the Administration he put together.

And I will sit here with an open mind. All you need to do is provide links and references that prove Fauci's policy making power.

But once again, you're giving your side and only your side the benefit of the doubt. You're making blanket statements of people wanting impartiality, and are rightfully upset over a puff piece. Which is impossible because if people are already saying "Omg WE ALL KNOW FAUCI MESSED THIS UP AND THEY NEVER TALKED ABOUT IT", they themselves were never coming to this situation with impartiality. That's going into the situation with prejudice. That is the type of mindset they look to weed out during juries because that person is tainted. And these are the people we're supposed to give deference to?

And one more time, Fauci did the job he was supposed to do. He disseminated the information and advised the President. It was up to the President to actually create policy. And in fact, Trump took every chance to try to take the spotlight away from Fauci, contradict what Fauci just said, and publicly talked about firing him.

If people do not like how Covid was handled, you talk to the policy maker. Which, yet again, Fauci. is. not. that.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Again, that is subjective.

And I get that's where most people want to leave it at, because they can never be wrong. But to actually say someone failed (which a lot of people are doing), you have to have a chain. You have to take the subject, list the subject's actual power over the situation, and then see how he went about it.

Now, the subject once again has no love from me. I already stated my reasons. But I also recognize his limitations. Trump tried to take over the cdc to edit the conversation about Covid, what could Fauci do? Tell me in his position, what powers were afforded to him to prevent that from happening. Just give me one avenue he had. If you can answer this, backed up with proof and evidence that it was in his power to battle the United States Government itself and the way they wanted to spin a deadly pandemic all by himself, I'll totally apologize and join the Fauci hate train. Because in doing that, you would have proved that he actually did mess this all up.

However, if you can't, and you'll do something like ignore this part or speak around it without giving actual evidence or proof that Fauci had the capability of going against Trump and his adminstration... you're then proving that Fauci didn't have the power to do anything but merely giving suggestions. And that the onus of how the pandemic was handled sits squarely on the shoulders of the Policy Makers. Which, once again, would be Trump and the Administration he put together.

And I will sit here with an open mind. All you need to do is provide links and references that prove Fauci's policy making power.

But once again, you're giving your side and only your side the benefit of the doubt. You're making blanket statements of people wanting impartiality, and are rightfully upset over a puff piece. Which is impossible because if people are already saying "Omg WE ALL KNOW FAUCI MESSED THIS UP AND THEY NEVER TALKED ABOUT IT", they themselves were never coming to this situation with impartiality. That's going into the situation with prejudice. That is the type of mindset they look to weed out during juries because that person is tainted. And these are the people we're supposed to give deference to?

And one more time, Fauci did the job he was supposed to do. He disseminated the information and advised the President. It was up to the President to actually create policy. And in fact, Trump took every chance to try to take the spotlight away from Fauci, contradict what Fauci just said, and publicly talked about firing him.

If people do not like how Covid was handled, you talk to the policy maker. Which, yet again, Fauci. is. not. that.

Ok I'll give you an answer.
He could have used the platform he was given to call it out. Yes it's a risk but what are they gonna do cut his mic and drag him off stage?

You could argue the initial research which may or may not have been authorised by Fauci or the funding for it helped contribute to the mess to begin with too.

The issue with the reviews etc is the new push and positioning that prejudice is fine because subjectivity which as I said I think is stupid but that's the present environment reviews are being presented it not just byJoe Bloggs but by a number of professional paid critics too.

Fauci wasn't entirely as powerless as people think. True he couldn't directly make policy but he was in a position where he could through clever use of the platform afforded to him actually apply pressure. But some of that would have been undermined by stuff like him being spotted maskless at a baseball game and a few other gaffs.

 

[Trunkage]

Yes I know it doesn't work.

I also know "Hey look at big stupid Rogan buying animal drug like a crazy conspiracy theorist" is more effective a narrative than "Joe Rogan went to the doctors and weirdly got prescribed this drug that doesn't work so maybe there's some issue here...." when you want to portray your competition (because that's what they view Rogan as) as a moron who can't be trusted and is harmful to their audience.

Joe Rogan got prescribed the stuff from his doctor lol. So we're saying he's in the wrong because he talked about his experiences after visiting the doctors and what he was given. So the problem is despite consulting some-one who is medically trained Joe Rogan talked about his experiences on a show called "The Joe Rogan Experience" podcast?

Getting it proscribed by a doctor is a way worse narrative because it now doctors also making up nonsense on no data available. We have to ask questions of whether Rogan forced his doctor to make the prescription. Or paid him off. Or whether he found a loophole in the law to get ineffective drugs. We have to wonder if he's now in league with one of those 12 doctors who are providing 90% of the misinformation. We have to consider he just straight up lied and pretended he had some worms.

Either Rogan is incredibly corrupt and a liar. Or he's an idiot. You choose.

Either way, he has now damaged more people than the vaccines have. Thank Minaj, thanks Rogan. Please stop trying to kill people.

 

[Trunkage]

I'm not sure that you meant to reply to me with this. It doesn't seem to line up with what you quoted.

Your father had a person come into his pharmacy asking for horse dewormer. I'm assuming it wasn't a joke. You stated that this person learnt it from the news. Which 'news' is this?

This conversation started with CNN being called a liar by Rogan over the treatments he received for Covid-19. I was saying that using the term horse dewormer is a joke like, 'I cant believe someone would take a dewormer and think it cures Covid.' Hence me brining up CNN.

I don't see what CNN as a huge lie because I feel like anyone saying this is using a slightly hyperbolic term to detail how crazy that sounds. To me, it's not really irrelevant that the drug is adminstered in an healthy dose or unhealthy one. It's (at the time of this recording) ineffective. Yes the unhealthy dose can lead to bad side effects but so can the normal human dose.

When Rogan made his video, he stated a bunch of drugs that do work along with Ivermectin. So I was going to give it a pass. But now he's calling people liars so I'll point out when he's laying

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Getting it proscribed by a doctor is a way worse narrative because it now doctors also making up nonsense on no data available. We have to ask questions of whether Rogan forced his doctor to make the prescription. Or paid him off. Or whether he found a loophole in the law to get ineffective drugs. We have to wonder if he's now in league with one of those 12 doctors who are providing 90% of the misinformation. We have to consider he just straight up lied and pretended he had some worms.

Either Rogan is incredibly corrupt and a liar. Or he's an idiot. You choose.

Either way, he has now damaged more people than the vaccines have. Thank Minaj, thanks Rogan. Please stop trying to kill people.

Yes there should be questions on why it was proscribed but there wasn't. That's part of the issue here. This could have had far more to the story but CNN chose to go "Big Joe Big Dumb Dumb" in essence instead of looking into it anymore or asking anything.

Or Rogan ended up going to a Doctor who was for some reason was hocking this stuff as a possible cure or something.

The whole "He's harmed people" narrative. Dude's never claimed to be a doctor he's a dude with a podcast and the last time this narrative surfaced with hydroxychloroquine the media fell over themselves to blame Trump for a mans death, not looking into the fact his wife has a record for domestic violence and was a life long democrat voter with a history of calling Trump untrustworthy and a liar but somehow her husband just happens to get a lethal dose of fish tank cleaner in his drink and Trump is entirely to blame?

Also it wasn't Rogan who claimed it was the animal stuff it was CNN so if any idiots ordered the animal stuff and got harmed guess where they got the idea it was the animal stuff from? Not Joe Rogan that's for sure.

 

[tstorm823]

Your father had a person come into his pharmacy asking for horse dewormer. I'm assuming it wasn't a joke. You stated that this person learnt it from the news. Which 'news' is this?

This conversation started with CNN being called a liar by Rogan over the treatments he received for Covid-19. I was saying that using the term horse dewormer is a joke like, 'I cant believe someone would take a dewormer and think it cures Covid.' Hence me brining up CNN.

I don't see what CNN as a huge lie because I feel like anyone saying this is using a slightly hyperbolic term to detail how crazy that sounds. To me, it's not really irrelevant that the drug is adminstered in an healthy dose or unhealthy one. It's (at the time of this recording) ineffective. Yes the unhealthy dose can lead to bad side effects but so can the normal human dose.

When Rogan made his video, he stated a bunch of drugs that do work along with Ivermectin. So I was going to give it a pass. But now he's calling people liars so I'll point out when he's laying

My father had someone call into the pharmacy asking if they carry ivermectin. They did not ask for horse medicine. He did not claim they asked for horse medicine. My intelligent and educated sibling who gets her information from mainstream news outlets thought it was ridiculous that people would call him asking for horse dewormer. She didn't know it was a medicine that people used as well (and was actively annoyed when we corrected her).

Media outlets have not used "horse dewormer" as a joke, at least not exclusively. They've convinced their readers that its medicine for livestock because that's what they've reported. Never mind that every medicine I take personally is also used in animals to some capacity. They do, in fact, have horse Zyrtec. But the NYT would never say "Cetirizine, an antihistimine commonly used for horses..." But for Ivermectin, that's what they did: "Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug commonly used for livestock, should not be taken to treat or prevent Covid-19." That's not a joke. That's their genuine reporting.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

My father had someone call into the pharmacy asking if they carry ivermectin. They did not ask for horse medicine. He did not claim they asked for horse medicine. My intelligent and educated sibling who gets her information from mainstream news outlets thought it was ridiculous that people would call him asking for horse dewormer. She didn't know it was a medicine that people used as well (and was actively annoyed when we corrected her).

Media outlets have not used "horse dewormer" as a joke, at least not exclusively. They've convinced their readers that its medicine for livestock because that's what they've reported. Never mind that every medicine I take personally is also used in animals to some capacity. They do, in fact, have horse Zyrtec. But the NYT would never say "Cetirizine, an antihistimine commonly used for horses..." But for Ivermectin, that's what they did: "Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug commonly used for livestock, should not be taken to treat or prevent Covid-19." That's not a joke. That's their genuine reporting.

It's also 100% accurate. Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug, it's commonly used for livestock, and it should not be taken to treat or prevent Covid-19.

 

[tstorm823]

It's also 100% accurate. Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug, it's commonly used for livestock, and it should not be taken to treat or prevent Covid-19.

It's technically correct. At the same time, you can say with equal truth that pseudophedrine is an antihistimine, commonly used to make crystal meth, that does not treat or prevent covid-19. Or more pointedly, it's 100% accurate to talk about older vaccines, which contain mercury-based preservatives, but you'd be rightfully pissed if CNN or the New York Times reported that way, because that's carrying water for anti-vaxxers.

 

[Gergar12]

I don't hope Bill Clinton has a speedy recovery.

 

[Trunkage]

Yes there should be questions on why it was proscribed but there wasn't. That's part of the issue here. This could have had far more to the story but CNN chose to go "Big Joe Big Dumb Dumb" in essence instead of looking into it anymore or asking anything.

Or Rogan ended up going to a Doctor who was for some reason was hocking this stuff as a possible cure or something.

The whole "He's harmed people" narrative. Dude's never claimed to be a doctor he's a dude with a podcast and the last time this narrative surfaced with hydroxychloroquine the media fell over themselves to blame Trump for a mans death, not looking into the fact his wife has a record for domestic violence and was a life long democrat voter with a history of calling Trump untrustworthy and a liar but somehow her husband just happens to get a lethal dose of fish tank cleaner in his drink and Trump is entirely to blame?

Also it wasn't Rogan who claimed it was the animal stuff it was CNN so if any idiots ordered the animal stuff and got harmed guess where they got the idea it was the animal stuff from? Not Joe Rogan that's for sure.

If someone orders animal stuff, blame CNN?

What is this nonsense?

 

[Trunkage]

My father had someone call into the pharmacy asking if they carry ivermectin. They did not ask for horse medicine. He did not claim they asked for horse medicine. My intelligent and educated sibling who gets her information from mainstream news outlets thought it was ridiculous that people would call him asking for horse dewormer. She didn't know it was a medicine that people used as well (and was actively annoyed when we corrected her).

Media outlets have not used "horse dewormer" as a joke, at least not exclusively. They've convinced their readers that its medicine for livestock because that's what they've reported. Never mind that every medicine I take personally is also used in animals to some capacity. They do, in fact, have horse Zyrtec. But the NYT would never say "Cetirizine, an antihistimine commonly used for horses..." But for Ivermectin, that's what they did: "Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug commonly used for livestock, should not be taken to treat or prevent Covid-19." That's not a joke. That's their genuine reporting.

How are we offended at this reporting?

 

[Trunkage]

No because Marvel clearly learned from that story. They've not been so much with other stuff.

Also yes the front page is, designed to get attention in comic shops and on shelves. I dunno I just don't find "Come see our shockingly LGBTQQIAA2+ character" to be in any kind of good taste because if the goal is to normalise LGBTQQIAA2+ people then treating a character as being part of the LGBTQQIAA2+ as some dramatic thing almost "come see the gay, see how the gay frolics about" well it's very much not normalising. It would be like major headlines every time Frank Miller had a character hook up in one of his comics (see Batman and Black Canary)

Also again there are literally thought boxes in comics so readers can read and have read for years some characters inner thoughts lol. Also the CCA eased off in like the 70s and while not fully abolished it was approving most things from that point anyway. It's also not like there aren't characters who haven't been explored as much especially their romantic leanings but those aren't the ones generally picked.

I don't know why you're obsessed with proving WokeScold right. I don't know why your handing them clear evidence of the exact behavior.

Also, it's becoming painfully obvious you haven't seen a comic book

 

[Agema]

It's technically correct. At the same time, you can say with equal truth that pseudophedrine is an antihistimine

So you mean completely untrue, then?

Pseudoephedrine is an adrenergic agonist (a.k.a. sympathomimetic), which is to say it acts like adrenaline. Hence why the nomenclature is similar to epinephrine (as someone decided to alternatively name adrenaline for no particularly good reason).

 

[ObsidianJones]

Ok I'll give you an answer.
He could have used the platform he was given to call it out. Yes it's a risk but what are they gonna do cut his mic and drag him off stage?

You could argue the initial research which may or may not have been authorised by Fauci or the funding for it helped contribute to the mess to begin with too.

The issue with the reviews etc is the new push and positioning that prejudice is fine because subjectivity which as I said I think is stupid but that's the present environment reviews are being presented it not just byJoe Bloggs but by a number of professional paid critics too.

Fauci wasn't entirely as powerless as people think. True he couldn't directly make policy but he was in a position where he could through clever use of the platform afforded to him actually apply pressure. But some of that would have been undermined by stuff like him being spotted maskless at a baseball game and a few other gaffs.

Ok, so we're going to have to acquaint ourselves with an important phrase

"At The Pleasure Of The President"

For one, as in most positions of an adminstration, that is the length of anyone's tenure who is appointed. As such, is that also the scope of whatever position you're chosen for.

The Pleasure of the President.

And Let's be real. Trump was not pleased with Fauci.

Trump’s claims about Fauci, fact-checked

President Donald Trump says that Americans are tired of COVID-19, the contagious disease that has killed more than 220,0

www.politifact.com

Lately, Trump has been attacking a member of his own administration: Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

"People are tired of hearing Fauci and all these idiots. These people that have gotten it wrong. Fauci’s a nice guy, he’s been here for 500 years," Trump said on a call with campaign staff Oct. 19. Trump labeled Fauci a "disaster" and said "every time he goes on television, there’s always a bomb, but there’s a bigger bomb if you fire him."

Trump’s skepticism of Fauci has been going on for months, but it’s intensified in the weeks before Election Day as Trump and Biden have made their final pitches to voters.

And the more Trump made it known that he didn't back Fauci, the more Republicans turned from the Advisor.

Most Republicans Don't Trust Fauci or CDC's COVID Advice

Ninety-three percent of Democrats said they don't trust the president, while 78 percent said they trust Fauci and 76 percent said they trust the CDC.

www.newsweek.com

A majority of Republicans say they don't trust Dr. Anthony Fauci or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for advice on the coronavirus, but almost 70 percent say they trust President Donald Trump for advice, according to a new poll.

Fifty-two percent of Republicans said they don't trust what the CDC has said about the novel virus, and 53 percent said they don't trust Fauci, who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and is a member of the White House coronavirus task force.

In comparison, 69 percent of Republicans said they trust what Trump has said about the coronavirus, while 22 percent said they don't trust the president.

Now what platform was Fauci afforded if all Trump did was poison it? Us who trust science did what was told of us, masked up, social distanced, got the shots. Those who trust demagogues... explain to everyone what he was actually supposed to do and what platform he could have used to change the minds of those who rabidly followed Trump? Be real here. He presented Science, they chose Talk Show Host. There is still no getting through to them. To blame him for not using his 'platform' when his very platform is provided at the Pleasure of the President and is backed by that same Pleasure is scapegoating.

One figure is to blame with any bungling of America's response to Covid. Fauci followed WHO and other medical organizations. Trump did not. And Trump went out of his way to discredit those who didn't follow his lie, to once again, he admitted was a lie on tape.

Trump: U.S. will terminate relationship with the World Health Organization in wake of Covid-19 pandemic

President Trump on Friday said the U.S. will pull out of the World Health Organization.

www.statnews.com

We need to stop being disingenuous. Drop the flags. Stop towing the party line. People are dying over this thing and you're still trying to sow 'what ifs' and dissention in the ranks. This isn't a game. This is real life.

 

[tstorm823]

So you mean completely untrue, then?

Sure, you got me. Point stands.

How are we offended at this reporting?

1) It deliberately sows resentment. It's giving people reading reason to look down on others for being so stupid as to take horse medicine.
2) Broadcasting the idea that horses and people are taking the same thing is only going to increase the number of people taking horse dosages.
3) It spikes credibility into the ground and is worse at putting people off ivermectin. If you say "ivermectin is an effective drug for other ailments, but has not been shown to effectively treat covid-19" (as many outlets did report, to their credit), people who see that and try and find the research are going to be able to verify that. If you say "you shouldn't take ivermectin, it's for horses", and someone tries to verify that, they not only now see you as a liar, you've also not given a valid reason not to use ivermectin. Like, are we trying to get people to do the right thing, or just trying to mock people who don't?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

If someone orders animal stuff, blame CNN?

What is this nonsense?

Ok so to be clear we're blaming Joe Rogan UFC commentator and podcaster for convincing people to get the stuff WHICH HIS DOCTOR PRESCRIBED APPARENTLY. But CNN specifically wording it as horse de-wormer which likely would be easier to order than human ivermectin. Yes CNN said it didn't work but this is the same CNN who previously said it was illegal to read wikileaks.

The same CNN who pushed the information about masks not working?

WHO stands by recommendation to not wear masks if you are not sick or not caring for someone who is sick | CNN

World Health Organization officials Monday said they still recommend people not wear face masks unless they are sick with Covid-19 or caring for someone who is sick.

edition.cnn.com

The same CNN that had an expert on to say this


So yeh when CNN is saying it doesn't work and then guidelines changed you'd think CNN would you know maybe think a bit before specifically terming something horse de-wormer considering how little trust people have in them for their claims to be right such that you know they'd take the most likely part that it's a horse de-wormer and run with that.

That's giving people who already believe it's some miracle cure an easy way to know how to find it avoiding most regular doctors and pharmacies. At least with Joe Rogan saying just the name it would be people going to their local pharmacy or doctor after it where the experts could more easily talk to them and stop them getting it.

I don't know why you're obsessed with proving WokeScold right. I don't know why your handing them clear evidence of the exact behavior.

Also, it's becoming painfully obvious you haven't seen a comic book

Clear evidence of what?

1) I didn't bring it up
2) That I find it tacky marketing and I'd wager I'm not alone
3) before you bring up the "Oh but you're so obsessed by it" I didn't bring this shit up, I merely stated my counter evidence
4) if doing that is bad then it really does say something about how bad wokescold are if they can't take rebuttals and need unilateral agreement and power.

The only evidence to take from this is they can throw it out to try and deflect from a topic and hide against accusations about how terrible the writing one some of the comics is getting which they were doing before throwing it out and I believe the term is buffalo-ing.

As far as "Never seeing a comic book" I don't have a vast collection but I've got a few. Most of New 52 suicide Squad. The Squirrel Girl collection. Some Tank girl , Jawbreakers Lost Souls and Godking, The Magicians New Class. So I'm not exactly unaware of them (that's not counting odd issues of stuff like old X force stuff I've had for years).

Also how does not seeing a comic book matter when part of what I'm on about is the news and sites reporting on the stuff? They're not the front page of comic books.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Sure, you got me. Point stands.

1) It deliberately sows resentment. It's giving people reading reason to look down on others for being so stupid as to take horse medicine.
2) Broadcasting the idea that horses and people are taking the same thing is only going to increase the number of people taking horse dosages.
3) It spikes credibility into the ground and is worse at putting people off ivermectin. If you say "ivermectin is an effective drug for other ailments, but has not been shown to effectively treat covid-19" (as many outlets did report, to their credit), people who see that and try and find the research are going to be able to verify that. If you say "you shouldn't take ivermectin, it's for horses", and someone tries to verify that, they not only now see you as a liar, you've also not given a valid reason not to use ivermectin. Like, are we trying to get people to do the right thing, or just trying to mock people who don't?

I'm all for mocking people who can afford to see a doctor but instead choose the livestock pharmacy section at the feed store because a bunch of media personalities said so

 

[Gergar12]

Ok so to be clear we're blaming Joe Rogan UFC commentator and podcaster for convincing people to get the stuff WHICH HIS DOCTOR PRESCRIBED APPARENTLY. But CNN specifically wording it as horse de-wormer which likely would be easier to order than human ivermectin. Yes CNN said it didn't work but this is the same CNN who previously said it was illegal to read wikileaks.

The same CNN who pushed the information about masks not working?

WHO stands by recommendation to not wear masks if you are not sick or not caring for someone who is sick | CNN

World Health Organization officials Monday said they still recommend people not wear face masks unless they are sick with Covid-19 or caring for someone who is sick.

edition.cnn.com

The same CNN that had an expert on to say this


So yeh when CNN is saying it doesn't work and then guidelines changed you'd think CNN would you know maybe think a bit before specifically terming something horse de-wormer considering how little trust people have in them for their claims to be right such that you know they'd take the most likely part that it's a horse de-wormer and run with that.

That's giving people who already believe it's some miracle cure an easy way to know how to find it avoiding most regular doctors and pharmacies. At least with Joe Rogan saying just the name it would be people going to their local pharmacy or doctor after it where the experts could more easily talk to them and stop them getting it.



Clear evidence of what?

1) I didn't bring it up
2) That I find it tacky marketing and I'd wager I'm not alone
3) before you bring up the "Oh but you're so obsessed by it" I didn't bring this shit up, I merely stated my counter evidence
4) if doing that is bad then it really does say something about how bad wokescold are if they can't take rebuttals and need unilateral agreement and power.

The only evidence to take from this is they can throw it out to try and deflect from a topic and hide against accusations about how terrible the writing one some of the comics is getting which they were doing before throwing it out and I believe the term is buffalo-ing.

As far as "Never seeing a comic book" I don't have a vast collection but I've got a few. Most of New 52 suicide Squad. The Squirrel Girl collection. Some Tank girl , Jawbreakers Lost Souls and Godking, The Magicians New Class. So I'm not exactly unaware of them (that's not counting odd issues of stuff like old X force stuff I've had for years).

Also how does not seeing a comic book matter when part of what I'm on about is the news and sites reporting on the stuff? They're not the front page of comic books.

Great now I have to buy an N95 mask. I mean they are more breathable, but where do you find them?!?!!

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Ok, so we're going to have to acquaint ourselves with an important phrase

"At The Pleasure Of The President"

For one, as in most positions of an adminstration, that is the length of anyone's tenure who is appointed. As such, is that also the scope of whatever position you're chosen for.

The Pleasure of the President.

And Let's be real. Trump was not pleased with Fauci.

Trump’s claims about Fauci, fact-checked

President Donald Trump says that Americans are tired of COVID-19, the contagious disease that has killed more than 220,0

www.politifact.com

And the more Trump made it known that he didn't back Fauci, the more Republicans turned from the Advisor.

Most Republicans Don't Trust Fauci or CDC's COVID Advice

Ninety-three percent of Democrats said they don't trust the president, while 78 percent said they trust Fauci and 76 percent said they trust the CDC.

www.newsweek.com

Now what platform was Fauci afforded if all Trump did was poison it? Us who trust science did what was told of us, masked up, social distanced, got the shots. Those who trust demagogues... explain to everyone what he was actually supposed to do and what platform he could have used to change the minds of those who rabidly followed Trump? Be real here. He presented Science, they chose Talk Show Host. There is still no getting through to them. To blame him for not using his 'platform' when his very platform is provided at the Pleasure of the President and is backed by that same Pleasure is scapegoating.

One figure is to blame with any bungling of America's response to Covid. Fauci followed WHO and other medical organizations. Trump did not. And Trump went out of his way to discredit those who didn't follow his lie, to once again, he admitted was a lie on tape.

Trump: U.S. will terminate relationship with the World Health Organization in wake of Covid-19 pandemic

President Trump on Friday said the U.S. will pull out of the World Health Organization.

www.statnews.com

We need to stop being disingenuous. Drop the flags. Stop towing the party line. People are dying over this thing and you're still trying to sow 'what ifs' and dissention in the ranks. This isn't a game. This is real life.

Because Facui got it wrong a number of times.
Part of the lack of trust is how he's been implicated in the Wuhan lab research funding.
Another part is after being on about sporting events starting back up but needing to wear masks he was spotted at one without a mask so he was seen as not even following his own advice so it added to the idea he wasn't trustworthy.
Fauci may have followed WHO but WHO got it wrong a number of times and other doctors were saying the WHO was wrong at the time and rather than support the claims of some of the US's own scientists he chose the WHO which early on was getting a lot of if not all of it's info from the CCP.

Sure Trump didn't help Fauci but the powers Trump had even as president only extend so far which is why Biden at present isn't able to do much either against some o the stuff going on.

It's not some party line stuff here it's me pointing out Fauci failed too here not just Trump and we're really not seeing some magical change now it's not Trump in power. Trump downplayed the pandemic because he didn't want panic buying which as we saw did still happen somewhat but at the time Trump wasn't the only one downplaying the potential severity but he also wasn't encouraging people to go out to street parties either.