Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by mrpg on Friday May 28, @11:26AM   Printer-friendly
from the what-could-go-wrong dept.

Ohio lawmakers want to abolish vaccine requirements:

[...] Lawmakers are working on legislation to call off the lottery immediately. They're also trying to head off any plans for "vaccine passports." And last month, they introduced a sweeping antivaccination bill that would essentially demolish public health and vaccination requirements in the state—and not just requirements for COVID-19 vaccines, requirements for any vaccine.

[...] State Rep. Beth Liston (D-Dublin) blasted the bill, telling The Columbus Dispatch, "Not only would it prevent schools, businesses and communities from putting safety measures in pace related to COVID, it will impact the health of our children... This bill applies to all vaccines—polio, measles, meningitis, etc. If it becomes law we will see worsening measles outbreaks, meningitis in the dorms, and children once again suffering from polio."

[...] "At its core, this proposal would destroy our current public health framework that prevents outbreaks of potentially lethal diseases, threatens the stability of our economy as it recovers from a devastating pandemic and jeopardizes the way we live, learn, work and celebrate life," the letter said.

[...] "HB 248 would put all Ohioans at risk while increasing the cost of health care for families, individuals and businesses," spokesperson Dan Williamson said. "This proposal applies to all immunizations, including childhood vaccines. If passed, this legislation could reverse decades of immunity from life-threatening, but vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles, mumps, hepatitis, meningitis and tuberculosis."

Also: Ohio GOP lawmakers, citing 'need to protect' from vaccines, seek to expand exemptions, nix COVID passports


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
1 (2) 3
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by fadrian on Friday May 28, @12:25PM (16 children)

    by fadrian (3194) on Friday May 28, @12:25PM (#1139604) Homepage

    Ohio lawmakers in general don't want this - only Ohio Republican lawmakers want this. A better headline would have said "Ohio Republicans...". This is par for the course for this (now) far right party.

    --
    That is all.
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @02:37PM (15 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @02:37PM (#1139637)

      How would you define far right, and how would that relate to this act? I'll site Wiki [wikipedia.org] on this one which states that the sides are generally characterized by an emphasis on:

      Left-wing : freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism

      Right-wing : authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism

      I don't really agree with their characterization, but that's tangential and, more importantly, I expect you *do* agree with it. So where, in this spectrum, do you believe forcing people to still yet not formally approved vaccines for viruses with a negligible mortality rate (relative to e.g. polio/small pox/etc) fits? Where do you believe letting people have the freedom of choice, even when that may not be perceived to be in the immediate and direct benefit of the nation, fits?

      • (Score: 2) by EEMac on Friday May 28, @04:52PM (4 children)

        by EEMac (6423) on Friday May 28, @04:52PM (#1139734)

        This is a fair question, and points out a flaw in modern arguments.

        Politics is no longer left versus right. The modern split is nationalist/populist versus globalist.

        Nationalist: loyalty and devotion to a nation, placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests
        Populist: a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite"
        Globalist: we're all just humans, national borders are Bad

        The democratic party is hardcore globalist. The republican party *was* globalist too, but is shifting to nationalist/populist.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @05:19PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @05:19PM (#1139741)

          > Globalist: we're all just humans,

          My personal addition to this: the sooner we all become mutts (intermarry/interbreed different regional characteristics) the better off we'll all be.

          This seems pretty clear with dogs, the purebreds are the high-strung ones, often with medical problems, mutts are more likely to be sensible and healthy.

        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday May 28, @05:40PM

          by VLM (445) on Friday May 28, @05:40PM (#1139752)

          The republican party *was* globalist too

          That was the neocon revolution and they were essentially 100% Jewish "Israel Firsters"

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @06:19PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @06:19PM (#1139778)

          The modern split is insane/sane.

          • (Score: 2) by EEMac on Friday May 28, @10:08PM

            by EEMac (6423) on Friday May 28, @10:08PM (#1139857)

            > The modern split is insane/sane.

            Each side would argue the *other* is on the wrong side of that split. (That said, I'm not saying you're wrong . . .)

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by VLM on Friday May 28, @05:39PM

        by VLM (445) on Friday May 28, @05:39PM (#1139750)

        In the 2020s it seems more like weaponized Judaism vs the white people. Its always race first all that other stuff comes a distant second at most.

        Remember its black lives matter not leftist lives matter.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday May 28, @06:04PM (8 children)

        by Thexalon (636) on Friday May 28, @06:04PM (#1139771)

        Describing the current Republicans as far-right makes perfect sense.

        You (reasonably, I think) defined "right wing" as:

        Right-wing : authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism

        What that means, in practice, is that had their acknowledged authority at the top of the earthly hierarchies in the USA (the Donald) said that Covid-19 was a real threat, and the way to defeat it was to wear masks and get vaccines as soon as possible, they would have followed that. But he said the exact opposite, repeatedly, and so doing any of those things was to defy authority. And any doctor who said otherwise was also defying his authority.

        What moves it from "right" to "far-right" is that in current Republican thinking, if a legitimate authority (a Republican politician, your church pastor, your boss at work, your commanding officer, your father/husband) tells you the sky is currently purple, you had better agree that the sky is purple, rather than look up and notice that it's blue or grey.

        The reason that academic scientific types are viewed suspiciously at best is that academic authorities are constantly being challenged and questioned. That constant facing of challenges and questioning is why someone like Dr Fauci is listened to by liberal types, though: It's not that he's the almighty sacred Dr Fauci, but because he's spent decades studying how pandemics and infectious diseases work, his conclusions are constantly being tested by other people who know something about pandemics and infectious diseases, and are much more often than not right.

        --
        The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by crafoo on Friday May 28, @06:26PM (1 child)

          by crafoo (6639) on Friday May 28, @06:26PM (#1139784)

          You should look into where the left and right terms come from: hint France. revolutionaries and reactionaries.

          Anyway, it doesn't matter and it's an inaccurate and broken mental model of the real politics. It all comes down to core values: Freedom, Stability, Equality. Each comes at the expense of the other two. Problems arise when one of these groups tries to force everyone else to live according to their core values. In a democracy with universal voting, they have the ability to do this once they have the majority. It's also worth mentioning that any one of these values taken to the extreme produces some pretty absurdly unrealistic and barbaric realities as their fanatics murder their way towards their "utopia".

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @09:53PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @09:53PM (#1139855)

            Equality isn't a great word, but we're sort of stuck with it for now. Justice would be more accurate. The fact that conservatives act like trying to address systemic racism in our governing bodies is some extremist idea really shows how far y'all have to evolve. While your point is interesting, it lacks a lot of context. Maximum freedom results in loss of freedoms for others, but I guess you coud argue ultimate freedom means everyone is free to oppress anyone else or fight back against their oppressors. Philosophically it is mildly interesting, but practically it is a useless point.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @06:38PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @06:38PM (#1139789)

          I think a lot of what you've said here is questionable, but there's one very clear and hopefully illustrative logical error. this [foxnews.com]. That is what Trump was saying about the vaccines in a medium that targeted his voters. And that's not cherry picked. The all so objective Politifact (perhaps it may be necessary to add a /s here if you believe Trump worked against vaccination) also confirmed [politifact.com] that Trump regularly evangelized for the vaccines.

          The point here is not a "gotcha", but to emphasize a logical flaw. Trump did evangelize for the vaccines for months. Yet it also true that conservatives tend to be vastly less enthusiastic about the vaccines than liberals. If your interpretation of authoritarianism rules the day, what gives?

          • (Score: 2) by Aegis on Friday May 28, @11:34PM (2 children)

            by Aegis (6714) on Friday May 28, @11:34PM (#1139879)

            The sub-heading from your Fox article:

            The former president and first lady Melania Trump received their vaccines privately in January at the White House

            Yeah, he loves that vaccine so much he got his shots in secret!

            While everybody else was leading by example Trump "leadership" was two halfhearted statements while tricking people into thinking he wasn't vaccinated.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @12:03AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @12:03AM (#1139887)

              It is the Trump MO, play both sides of an issue so he can conveniently claim he was always on whichever side is convenient at the moment. He is a super troll, except contrary to some moldy bird's opinion he is terrible at it. The only thing that works in his favor are the idiots that believe him, and the legal framework that allows him to muddy the water as to his intent. Then it is just a game of making excuses as to why he ever said the bad things, which is also why the language he uses is always so vague.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @02:32PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @02:32PM (#1140031)

              By focusing on what was not done instead of what was done, you can easily convince yourself of anything. Because you can always add one more "Oh yeah? Well if he really cared about [x], why didn't he also do [y]?"

              Trump unquestionably advocated for the vaccines for months. Why didn't he publicize his own vaccination? Who knows? But to try to read into a single non-action as some sort of contradiction of months of consistent messaging on the topic is nothing but you engaging in cognitive dissonance to try to hold one view (Trump opposed vaccines) in spite of literally all evidence saying the exact opposite.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday May 29, @05:28AM (1 child)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 29, @05:28AM (#1139956) Journal

            Trump regularly evangelized for the vaccines

            He evangelized for Trump vaccines.
            He lost the bet he took (that a vaccine will be available before elections) and thus stopped evangelizing for it, just to not help a different-than-his administration that would distribute the vaccines. Going to the point of taking his shot in secret.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @07:21PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @07:21PM (#1140079)

              Or, alternatively, and more realistically - he spent his final months in office focused entirely on exposing what he felt were issues with the election.

              For that matter, was his shot given before or after he was censored from all corporate media in America? It may have been he was globally censored and then critiqued for not saying anything, which is taking our dystopia to a whole new level.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @12:34PM (40 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @12:34PM (#1139606)

    What are the odds the folks voting against vaccines have taken the Covid shot? Or if they got sick that they would want all this medical science that they are denying? The past President is 2 for 2.

    The Trump really led the party into the weeds when he first decided Covid was no big deal, and then when that turned out wrong instead of simply saying oops, doubled down with the show no mask as a sign of being a true believer thing. Now the party is stuck in these positions that are self destructive and simply nuts.

    No matter how misguided the other side is, the GOP is just not viable like this.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by epitaxial on Friday May 28, @12:48PM (39 children)

      by epitaxial (3165) on Friday May 28, @12:48PM (#1139608)

      Covid was no big deal for Trump. He only needed oxygen, a medivac helicopter, and still experimental drugs to recover. Then we learn he was vaccinated back in January but never opened his big mouth about that. What a a complete moron he was. He could have sold Trump masks and other PPE to his followers and made bank.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by HammeredGlass on Friday May 28, @02:27PM (15 children)

        by HammeredGlass (12241) on Friday May 28, @02:27PM (#1139632)

        There were more anti-vaxxers on the hippie dippie left before the MSM used covid as another tool of getting rid of the orange man. Their weaponization of this drove a lot of stupid reactionary stuff on the right to where we are now.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @04:44PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @04:44PM (#1139727)

          There were more anti-vaxxers on the hippie dippie left before the MSM used covid as another tool of getting rid of the orange man.

          When in doubt, make shit up. Remember when it was liberals disguised as conservatives attempting an insurrection?

        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday May 28, @06:10PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Friday May 28, @06:10PM (#1139774)

          The anti-vaxxers have always been a combination of the anti-intellectual hippie-dippy lefties who think that everything that can be fixed with whatever new age spiritual nonsense that's out there, and the anti-intellectual hardline righties who think that vaccines are a secret Communist plot to control our minds and bodies or something.

          The people that fed the hard-line opposition to the MMR vaccine also fed the hard-line opposition to the Covid-19 vaccine.

          --
          The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 28, @10:15PM (2 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday May 28, @10:15PM (#1139861) Journal

          If your defense is that some hippie dumbasses ALSO believe your nonsense then you're fighting a losing battle!

          • (Score: 1) by HammeredGlass on Saturday May 29, @02:02PM (1 child)

            by HammeredGlass (12241) on Saturday May 29, @02:02PM (#1140024)

            I didn't say that I believe it. The left used to hold the hippies aloft as the ideal liberal. Don't blame society for still following that around.

            • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @08:03PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @08:03PM (#1140093)

              Sk you're 49 and angry at the world. DEFENS!

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 30, @12:06PM (9 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 30, @12:06PM (#1140231) Journal

          before the MSM used covid as another tool of getting rid of the orange man.

          Trump started that stupidity. And given that Trump lost the election against Biden, it looks to me like maybe a considerable portion of the public agreed.

          • (Score: 0, Troll) by HammeredGlass on Sunday May 30, @06:01PM (8 children)

            by HammeredGlass (12241) on Sunday May 30, @06:01PM (#1140297)

            You're a fucktard. diaf

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 30, @10:02PM (7 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 30, @10:02PM (#1140338) Journal
              You seriously going to defend Trump? We didn't have to turn mask wearing into an ideological litmus test. Trump did that. We didn't have to come up with excuses for why we weren't trying to squelch covid. Trump did that. We didn't have to buy up the world's supply of some dubious and inconsequential medication (Remdesivir). Trump did that anyway. There's a year of pointless theater that wouldn't have happened, if Trump hadn't done that. And I bet a competent handling of covid would have left Trump in charge today.
              • (Score: 0, Troll) by HammeredGlass on Monday May 31, @02:32PM (6 children)

                by HammeredGlass (12241) on Monday May 31, @02:32PM (#1140495)

                You're an nonredeemable fucktard. diaf

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 01, @01:24AM (5 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 01, @01:24AM (#1140621) Journal
                  What's worth redeeming here? Trump has a record [soylentnews.org]. DannyB put together a collection so you don't have to stew in ignorance and I don't have to search hard for counterexamples. Send him your thanks.

                  DannyB's best pick [washingtonpost.com] was the changing narratives as covid spread in the US with Trump admitting in private that covid was worse than he claimed in public. That's an awful lot of lying and wriggling on the hook just there.

                  Look, you got conned. Happens all the time.
                  • (Score: 0, Troll) by HammeredGlass on Tuesday June 01, @05:40PM (4 children)

                    by HammeredGlass (12241) on Tuesday June 01, @05:40PM (#1140798)

                    You're a complete fucktard. diaf

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 01, @05:56PM (3 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 01, @05:56PM (#1140805) Journal
                      So nothing to say? From here [msn.com]:

                      In a recorded conversation with Woodward on February 7, Trump said the coronavirus was "more deadly than even your strenuous flus" and that people could contract the virus just by breathing in air.

                      For weeks after that conversation, Trump repeatedly told the public that the coronavirus was no worse than the seasonal flu.

                      Meanwhile in public [washingtonpost.com]:

                      February 10: “Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away.”

                      There's a bunch of good stuff in DannyB's collection. But I'm afraid that you'll need a new role model, if you read that.

                      • (Score: 1) by HammeredGlass on Tuesday June 01, @06:06PM (2 children)

                        by HammeredGlass (12241) on Tuesday June 01, @06:06PM (#1140809)

                        You are a colossal fucktard. diaf

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 01, @06:17PM (1 child)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 01, @06:17PM (#1140815)

                          REEEEeeeeeeEEEeeeEEEeeee

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @04:06PM (22 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @04:06PM (#1139690)

        > a complete moron

        a complete hypocrite

        ftfy.

        • (Score: 2) by Tork on Friday May 28, @06:29PM (21 children)

          by Tork (3914) on Friday May 28, @06:29PM (#1139785)
          Not sure I agree that you 'fixed it'. Republicans don't care about hypocrisy or they'd behave a whole lot different. For example: Bailing on an investigation into the Capitol Insurrection like we haven't forgotten about the 18 times they investigated Benghazi.
          --
          Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @12:10AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @12:10AM (#1139891)

            Don't forget that the insurrection was supposedly ANTEEFUH and BLM, so they apparently don't want to get to the bottom of their own suspcions! They really don't give a fuck and their voters are goddamn happy to have psychopathic monsters that will piss off liberals. If only they could see how the rest of the world views them, if only for a day.

            • (Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday May 29, @12:57AM

              by Tork (3914) on Saturday May 29, @12:57AM (#1139899)
              Heh. The big surprise for me this week was the GOP, the party of 'Law and Order', effectively telling the local PD to fuck off cos there'll be no investigation.
              --
              Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 30, @12:09PM (18 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 30, @12:09PM (#1140232) Journal

            For example: Bailing on an investigation into the Capitol Insurrection like we haven't forgotten about the 18 times they investigated Benghazi.

            Show the two are comparable. You might want to start with number of deaths.

            • (Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday May 30, @04:22PM (17 children)

              by Tork (3914) on Sunday May 30, @04:22PM (#1140273)
              I'm not sure exactly how many deaths can be factually credited to the Capitol Insurrection, perhaps a bi-partisan investigation could find the actual number and we could have that conversation. 🤡
              --
              Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 30, @10:11PM (16 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 30, @10:11PM (#1140339) Journal
                One death can be factually credited, a female protestor shot as she attempted to enter a barricaded area. Police already did that investigating of all other deaths associated with that protest/riot.

                Meanwhile we have four US personnel and an unknown number of Libyan attackers killed in the Benghazi attack with a lot of light infantry weapons deployed by both sides (including machine guns and mortars) and several buildings destroyed. Not even close.
                • (Score: 2) by Tork on Monday May 31, @12:00AM (15 children)

                  by Tork (3914) on Monday May 31, @12:00AM (#1140379)
                  Heh. If the insurrectionists at the Capitol had been more competent the damage would have been far, far worse than it ended up being. A dead Nancy and Mike would have brought the number dead up to the arbitrary threshold you think is needed for an investigation. Home-grown insurrection deserves a bit more (preferably bipartisan) attention than you're suggesting, especially since one political party tried pulling the "It was you guys in disguise!" bullshit.
                  --
                  Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 31, @12:37AM (14 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 31, @12:37AM (#1140389) Journal

                    If the insurrectionists at the Capitol had been more competent the damage would have been far, far worse than it ended up being.

                    Or if there had actually been said insurrectionists at the Capitol. There does seem to be a dearth of them.

                    A dead Nancy and Mike would have brought the number dead up to the arbitrary threshold you think is needed for an investigation.

                    Which didn't happen, let us note.

                    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Monday May 31, @03:23AM (13 children)

                      by Tork (3914) on Monday May 31, @03:23AM (#1140415)

                      Or if there had actually been said insurrectionists at the Capitol.

                      Amply proven yonks ago.

                      Which didn't happen, let us note.

                      incompetence. T'was still attempted.

                      --
                      Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 31, @05:08AM (12 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 31, @05:08AM (#1140439) Journal

                        Or if there had actually been said insurrectionists at the Capitol.

                        Amply proven yonks ago.

                        Here's my best take [soylentnews.org] on that. The money quote:

                        I think the fundamental problem here is that you're working from a really bad premise - GIGO. If there was an intent to kidnap or kill Pence or other politicians, then someone would have brought a lot more firepower to the conflict than baseball bats and pepper spray. As I noted, only one person was caught in the Capitol building with a firearm - which they never used. That's telling.

                        Let us also recall that your argument was so weak that a big part of your arugment was wearing "civil war two" t-shirts was evidence of insurrection.

                        • (Score: 2) by Tork on Monday May 31, @07:27AM (11 children)

                          by Tork (3914) on Monday May 31, @07:27AM (#1140454)

                          My argument was that they stated their intent. Your counter-argument danced between a change in scope and an .. hehe.. argument I made while satirizing your position. Their ultimate lack of success does not exonerate them, nor does pushing the goalpost into the middle of the smoke.

                          --
                          Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 31, @08:46PM (10 children)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 31, @08:46PM (#1140567) Journal

                            My argument was that they stated their intent.

                            I see you already undermined the importance of "stated" with your subsequent comment about satire. A statement isn't enough without understanding all the ways that it can be deliberately distorted, such as by satire and exaggeration, both which I think played a role here in the protest chanting and merchandising.

                            • (Score: 2) by Tork on Monday May 31, @09:32PM (9 children)

                              by Tork (3914) on Monday May 31, @09:32PM (#1140581)
                              It's worth pointing out that the merchandise needed time to be designed (heh) and produced, this happened before satire and exaggeration could mutate it into something it's not like you're trying to suggest, here. That's one of the reasons why they tried desperately blaming 'BLM in disguise', they know (and regret) how they looked on camera.
                              --
                              Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 01, @12:11AM (8 children)

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 01, @12:11AM (#1140606) Journal

                                It's worth pointing out that the merchandise needed time to be designed (heh) and produced, this happened before satire and exaggeration could mutate it into something it's not like you're trying to suggest, here.

                                There's always plenty of time for satire and exaggeration. It's not hard to anticipate either.

                                • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 01, @02:05AM (7 children)

                                  by Tork (3914) on Tuesday June 01, @02:05AM (#1140635)
                                  So there's no reason for them to make choices that risk them being misunderstood. Thanks for the support!
                                  --
                                  Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 01, @02:32AM (6 children)

                                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 01, @02:32AM (#1140636) Journal
                                    No reason? Just like there was no reason for you to make satirical posts that could be misunderstood?
                                    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 01, @06:20AM (5 children)

                                      by Tork (3914) on Tuesday June 01, @06:20AM (#1140689)

                                      There plenty of reason to criticize. Even in the eyes of their peers. Voting against the investigation was an act of self defense. 🙄

                                      --
                                      Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 01, @04:28PM (4 children)

                                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 01, @04:28PM (#1140776) Journal

                                        There plenty of reason to criticize. Even in the eyes of their peers.

                                        Of course, there was. Such as the sudden claims (apparently as the riot was ongoing) that Antifa and such were staging the riot.

                                        Voting against the investigation was an act of self defense. 🙄

                                        Such as the previous two House investigations of Trump? Voting against wasting one's time is a justifiable act of self-defense. Trump is a private citizen now. If there really is some criminal act of insurrection, coup, treason, whatever, he won't be protected by the office of the President.

                                        • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 01, @04:41PM (3 children)

                                          by Tork (3914) on Tuesday June 01, @04:41PM (#1140781)

                                          If there really is some criminal act of insurrection, coup, treason, whatever, he won't be protected by the office of the President.

                                          Followed by sycophantic supporters going "nuh uh, bias! Biasss!!!!!!" Basically the insurrectionists did enough damage, with zero evidence to back their motivation, that the GOP is trying to figure out how to tiptoe around the minefield sustaining as little damage as possible. Perhaps they knew ahead of time that people would come out of the woodwork trying to minimize what they should instead have been condemning.

                                          --
                                          Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 01, @05:48PM (2 children)

                                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 01, @05:48PM (#1140800) Journal

                                            If there really is some criminal act of insurrection, coup, treason, whatever, he won't be protected by the office of the President.

                                            Followed by sycophantic supporters going "nuh uh, bias! Biasss!!!!!!"

                                            The problem here is that in the real world, convictions for crimes require evidence. You need that first.

                                            • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 01, @05:51PM (1 child)

                                              by Tork (3914) on Tuesday June 01, @05:51PM (#1140801)
                                              Right now there are a buncha people who dressed up and misbehaved on camera, they're currently biting their nails. So far none of them have gotten off because someone else made fun of their wardrobe.
                                              --
                                              Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 06, @05:27AM

                                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 06, @05:27AM (#1142265) Journal
                                                Sorry for my lateness.

                                                Right now there are a buncha people who dressed up and misbehaved on camera

                                                Which isn't insurrection. I've made it clear from the beginning that I agree that there were a bunch of people who dressed up and misbehaved, criminally on camera. That's not insurrection. Hyperbolic speech whether chanted or merchandised is not insurrection either.

                                                I've also noted that these people will be investigated quite thoroughly. If there is evidence for insurrection, I think it likely that it'll turn up. That it hasn't already been found and spread about in the media doesn't look good for your argument.

  • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by TheGratefulNet on Friday May 28, @01:03PM (17 children)

    by TheGratefulNet (659) on Friday May 28, @01:03PM (#1139612)

    the form would be that you are now EXCLUDED from our medical system and you won't receive any urgent care at any US hospital.

    you want to go all 'not part of society' ? fine. there are rules for such things. if you want to break from the societal grid, we have to ensure that you will never be back among us, and that you stay in plague rat land until you decide to change. (even then, I'm not so sure we'd want to let you in)

    hey, I'm all for this. you want to live on your island with the rest of your fellow pigs? fine. just dont come back to modern society ever again. go be in your lord-of-flies world. hope you enjoy it.

    yeah, that's a dream. we'll never take a hard stand on people who are hell-bent on pissing into the community pool, so to speak. I dont know why we tolerate that. oh, we don't - I just had a flashback to the BLM protests last summer and how the government and cops did NOT put up with opposition; not one bit! they went full medieval on their enemies. but now that D's are in power, they never do that. you know, I would not mind seeing the power of the government coming down HARD on the trumpers and friends. HARD. like BLM summer hard. like chem weapons hard. like, the kind of hard we did NOT do on jan 6.

    R used to like law and order. I say we give it to them. on the receiving side.

    enough is enough. tired of the continual regression that the R's keep doing.

    if we went one party in this country, it would not even matter anymore. we have lost the sane R party; and the D's are too weak to really fight fire with fire.

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @02:41PM (12 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @02:41PM (#1139641)

      Great idea. Let's also make it where you can't get medical care if you're over 180lbs (or a certain BMI). After all, these individuals poor health habits are costing society billions if not trillions of dollars. I think we should also probably create a "health passport" that prevents these individuals from being able to buy fast food, soft drinks, or other beverages that are likely to further expand their cost on society.

      Can you imagine how much greater society will be? Dramatic reductions in healthcare costs, dramatic improvement in overall health. I mean what's not to like?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by EJ on Friday May 28, @02:46PM (9 children)

        by EJ (2452) on Friday May 28, @02:46PM (#1139643)

        It's almost like the liberals want to set up some kind of system where people with undesirable traits are weeded out of society. I wonder what they could call it. Eugenics is already taken.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @03:39PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @03:39PM (#1139671)

          Let's list, shall we, the kind of people with "undesirable" traits conservatives would like to weed out of society:

          Blacks;
          Hispanics;
          Non-english-speakers;
          Muslims;
          Atheists;
          Gays;
          Non-binary gendered;
          Non-submissive women;
          Liberals;
          Etc.

          In other words: Anyone that is not an english speaking, strait, christian, conservative white male, or submissive female.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @04:19PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @04:19PM (#1139701)

            Republicans will gain millions of votes from Blacks and Hispanics over the next decade.

            • (Score: 2) by Tork on Friday May 28, @07:06PM (1 child)

              by Tork (3914) on Friday May 28, @07:06PM (#1139800)

              Republicans will gain millions of votes from Blacks and Hispanics over the next decade.

              Heh. Except Republicans are trying to outlaw that.

              --
              Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @02:31AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @02:31AM (#1139918)

                Maybe that is the long game. If they say they will vote Republican, maybe Republicans will allow them to vote.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @04:23PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @04:23PM (#1139705)

            it's almost as if two different groups of people can be bad at the same time!

          • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by epitaxial on Friday May 28, @06:29PM

            by epitaxial (3165) on Friday May 28, @06:29PM (#1139786)

            Damn you aren't wrong. Too many black people voted in Georgia and look at the laws the republicans pushed through to prevent it from happening.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @04:09PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @04:09PM (#1139692)

          > I wonder what they could call it

          That's easy, call it China. Feel free to move there if you like that style of government.

        • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @05:01PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @05:01PM (#1139736)

          It's almost like the liberals want to set up some kind of system where people with undesirable traits are weeded out of society.

          "Build the wall!"
          "Ban muslimsl!"
          "It wans't us it was antifa!!"
          "Legalize running over BLM!!"
          "Who cares if law enforcement kills unarmed minorities?"
          "Gay people can't marry!"
          "Attack chinese people cos *KuNg*FLu*"


          ... often hilariously followed by...

          "OnE BaD ApPuL DuZnt SpOiL TeH BuNch"

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @12:16AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @12:16AM (#1139893)

          lol it is almost like you're a total fucking moron! Put the Qool-aidz down my brother.

      • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by VLM on Friday May 28, @05:28PM (1 child)

        by VLM (445) on Friday May 28, @05:28PM (#1139745)

        Great idea. Let's also make it where you can't get medical care if you're over 180lbs (or a certain BMI). After all, these individuals poor health habits are costing society billions if not trillions of dollars. I think we should also probably create a "health passport" that prevents these individuals from being able to buy fast food, soft drinks, or other beverages that are likely to further expand their cost on society.

        That's so complicated. Start simpler.

        Think how much cheaper and simpler it would be to implement a caste system where skin colors that commit more murders than their demographic percentage indicate, could be forced to be separate but equal to the good non-murderous skin color people. We could force them to use separate schools, bathrooms, and water fountains and sit at the back of the bus and enforce laws against them a little more strongly and similar.

        These modern Jewish Liberals sound so familiar somehow, but I just can't place it.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @07:10PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @07:10PM (#1139802)

          Think how much cheaper and simpler it would be to implement a caste system where skin colors that commit more murders than their demographic percentage indicate, could be forced to be separate but equal to the good non-murderous skin color people.

          Why stop there, why not create economic and public service scenarios that force people based on skin color so they stay trapped in their neighborhoods?

          These modern Jewish Liberals sound so familiar somehow, but I just can't place it.

          Betrayed by your own sarcasm.

    • (Score: 2) by EJ on Friday May 28, @02:44PM (2 children)

      by EJ (2452) on Friday May 28, @02:44PM (#1139642)

      You don't fight fire with fire. You fight fire with a hose. That's why California is always burning down.

      Don't be too confident in your preferred party. Politics is just like sports. You think Tom Brady wants The Patriots to win the Superb Owl anymore?

      The only reason the GOP is doing this in Ohio is because they think it's the best strategy to earn votes. It's not because they think it's a good idea. If they believe the only people left to possibly sway to their side are the dumbfucks, then why wouldn't they go after their votes? Don't hate the players. Hate the game.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @03:17PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @03:17PM (#1139655)

        > The only reason the GOP is doing this in Ohio is because they think it's the best strategy to earn votes. It's not because they think it's a good idea.

        I'm not so sure about that.

        It may have started that way, but the Republican party has been pushing religious dogma and anti-intellectualism for decades now. I think were well into the generation of true believers holding power in the party now.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Friday May 28, @04:37PM

        by ElizabethGreene (6748) on Friday May 28, @04:37PM (#1139717)

        You don't fight fire with fire. You fight fire with a hose. That's why California is always burning down.

        Your metaphor is a little broken in kind of a funny way. The most effective way to prevent or contain fires is with fire. California made it super hard to do controlled burns; That's why they have rampant problems with wildfires. <3

        Source:
        https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2019/11/californias-wildfire-controlled-prescribed-burns-native-americans/ [motherjones.com]
        Note that this is a far-left tree-hugger* source. Any assertion of right-wing bias in reporting are going to get you laughed at.

        * I would hope that tree huggers have good data on forestry management, but for a while they lost and forgot that building a fence around forests wasn't the same thing as Conservation and Preservation. It's a pendulum, and it's swinging back now.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 31, @12:28AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 31, @12:28AM (#1140384) Journal

      you want to go all 'not part of society' ? fine. there are rules for such things. if you want to break from the societal grid, we have to ensure that you will never be back among us, and that you stay in plague rat land until you decide to change. (even then, I'm not so sure we'd want to let you in)

      The problem with the "my way or the highway" approach is that the people you're trying to boot might end up getting in charge (say like a particular administration that just left?). They can use those same rationalizations. Then it's their way and their highway - not yours. Better to make just law that covers most circumstances than law that backfires spectacularly once the wrong people are in charge.

      My take is that no amount of law will compensate for poor leadership. We should be looking at ways to increase vaccination rates rather than exiling the unbelievers (and ignoring that you might end up being the exiled when all is said and done).

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @02:04PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @02:04PM (#1139625)

    You DO believe the vaccines work, don't you?

    REEEEEEEE!

  • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday May 28, @02:40PM (16 children)

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Friday May 28, @02:40PM (#1139640)

    I got my vaccine, I am definitely pro-vaccine - but I don't think you should force people to get vaccinated.

    Somehow, forcing people to have something injected into them that they don't want injected seems to me not okay.

    > antivaccination bill ... vaccination requirements

    Some of the provisions are indeed antivaccination (blocking this lottery for example). However, where the provisions are pro-choice, well, I pretty much support that. Educate, bribe, encourage; but coercion is beyond the pale for me.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Socrastotle on Friday May 28, @02:53PM (4 children)

      by Socrastotle (13446) on Friday May 28, @02:53PM (#1139648) Journal

      I get the impression many hold some Hollywood like views of the past, without ever realizing that many of the most awful things that happen in society were not because everybody decided to just be evil but because they were framed in a way of rationality, even civility, that can make bad ideas seem like perfectly obvious ones. Buck vs Bell [cornell.edu] is one of the most Supreme Court Cases and judgements. It was a key component for a eugenics program that was making steady "progress" in the United States. Said program would likely have come to fruition if not for a certain German individual rising rapidly to power shortly after this case was decided (1927).

      The case was about a feeble-minded woman who came from a feeble-minded mother and who had herself already had multiple feeble-minded children while working as a prostitute. During her detention the state sought her sterilization arguing that her behavior was a danger to society. It was a key component of a more wide-scale eugenics program. And the state obtained that right, and she was indeed sterilized. The most interesting thing though is reading the judgement from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:

      We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

      And it's quite easy to see how society could be swayed to go down what was an extremely dangerous path where said German leader was almost certainly an inevitable outcome, even if the final villain went by a different name. The most interesting thing? That ruling was never formally overturned and remains a part of American legalese to this day. It is always important to remember that liberty, in and of itself, is a key value. And setting it aside for some other gain is one of the few examples where there is indeed a genuine slippery slope.

      • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday May 28, @04:18PM

        by PiMuNu (3823) on Friday May 28, @04:18PM (#1139700)

        Thanks.

      • (Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Friday May 28, @05:56PM (2 children)

        by Beryllium Sphere (r) (5062) on Friday May 28, @05:56PM (#1139763)

        Annoying to see a Supreme Court justice make an error that blatant.

        Going from vaccination, which benefits the recipient, to involuntary sterilization, is not a slippery slope. It's a non sequitur.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday May 29, @05:40AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 29, @05:40AM (#1139957) Journal

          Annoying to see a Supreme Court justice make an error that blatant.

          Hindsight something something 20/20.
          '60-'70-ies it was manly to slap a woman, watch the early Bond movies.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @07:59AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @07:59AM (#1139990)

          In either case it's supposed to be beneficial to the rest of the population, is the point I believe.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Friday May 28, @03:22PM (6 children)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Friday May 28, @03:22PM (#1139661)

      Somehow, forcing people to have something injected into them that they don't want injected seems to me not okay.

      Vaccination is one of those things that only work when everybody does it - like taxes, the highway code or the law. It's one of those things that should be forced unto idiots who don't want it because if they're allowed to do what they please, the idiots end up hurting society as a whole. You've never heard of people who are left to choose whether to drive on the wrong side of the road, not pay taxes or rob people if they so wish, right? Well, same thing with vaccination.

      Throw anti-vaxxers in the slammer, is what I say.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by ChrisMaple on Friday May 28, @03:55PM (2 children)

        by ChrisMaple (6964) on Friday May 28, @03:55PM (#1139680)

        Vaccination is one of those things that only work when everybody does it

        That is demonstrably false, so wrong that it's silly. For many reasons it's best if nearly everybody is vaccinated, but if only some are vaccinated it "works" to protect those people to some degree.

        - like taxes

        It is possible to organize a fee-based society, rather than tax-based. Read "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" for a fictional outline.

        The most obvious reason for taxes is national defense: how do you like having the best reason for your view being the existence of evil invaders?

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @04:35PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @04:35PM (#1139715)

          The most obvious reason for taxes is

          INFLATION there, fixed that for you. And purpose of a progressive income tax is FAIRNESS. You want to tax discretionary income, not one needed to live on.

          https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/033015/what-difference-between-disposable-income-and-discretionary-income.asp [investopedia.com]

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @06:32PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @06:32PM (#1139788)

            There would be no central currency to inflate were there no taxation ;)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @04:20PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @04:20PM (#1139703)

        The pesky Constitution still gets in your way, tyrant.

      • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday May 28, @04:28PM

        by PiMuNu (3823) on Friday May 28, @04:28PM (#1139710)

        > Vaccination is one of those things that only work when everybody does it

        I understand that - and as I said I did get vaccinated and look forwards to my second vaccination. Nonetheless, vaccination is a deeply personal choice and I don't think that it should be forced on people.

        I realise also that it is not a trivial thing; weakness in the vaccination programme is quite literally a life-or-death thing and some people *will* die because others refuse to take up their vaccine.

        > Throw anti-vaxxers in the slammer, is what I say.

        On a purely practical level, I think that this would have the opposite effect to what you intend - i.e. politicisation of the vaccine, mass civil disobedience and a stronger platform to anti-vaxxers. Especially in US, where that sort of libertarian attitude is stronger. There is already a too strong correlation between politics and corona virus in US. How many coppers are anti-vaxxers? How many national guard troopers?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @12:23AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @12:23AM (#1139895)

        Nah that is crazy authoritarian talk. Freedom over our own bodies is the most fundamental. Now giving a child the opportunity to get vaccinated when their parents are nutjobs who refuse? Yeah, that should be a thing.

        Or were you trying to play right into the hands of the nutters? "See see?? They're just dictators who want to force people to do what they think is right!" Super authoritarian vibes when you lock innocent people up. Wait till they refuse to leave a grocery store for not wearing a mask, then lock em up for trespassing. Also until the disease is under control require vaccination records for large public events. No more sportsball for nutters, they can watch at home on TV until the danger has passed.

    • (Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Friday May 28, @05:20PM (3 children)

      by Beryllium Sphere (r) (5062) on Friday May 28, @05:20PM (#1139742)

      My libertarian side is sympathetic, but we do coerce people for general safety in order to have a society at all, and the libertarian lawyers at Volokh Conspiracy have made the case that vaccination could be a cromulent use of state power.

      A sensible compromise would be to allow complete freedom of choice to everyone who never breathes in public, or at least avoids choirs and indoor sports events.

      Children are not forced to get their shots - they just have to be home-schooled if they don't. The same principle could apply to adults.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by slinches on Friday May 28, @05:53PM (1 child)

        by slinches (5049) on Friday May 28, @05:53PM (#1139761)

        Children are not forced to get their shots - they just have to be home-schooled if they don't. The same principle could apply to adults.

        Really? How would that work out? Please explain to me how these people would support themselves without interacting with society. Would you put them in camps and provide them with basic necessities for survival or reserve some land to put them on to fend for themselves?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @02:49AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @02:49AM (#1139927)

          Get a job that doesn't require it. Go to establishments that don't require it. Let the free market you worship do its job.

      • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Saturday May 29, @04:12PM

        by PiMuNu (3823) on Saturday May 29, @04:12PM (#1140046)

        > do coerce people for general safety in order to have a society at all

        The closest thing I can imagine is something like - if you drive without a licence/insurance you (eventually, after enough offences) go to jail. Or did you have something else in mind?

        There is a big difference between - "you must have an injection in order to live a regular life" and "you must have a licence to drive your car". The difference being that the former requires a medical invasive procedure, and the results are more drastic in terms of what one can and cannot do.

        (At least, here in Europe access to a car is not a requirement to live a regular life, outside of very rural areas - US is maybe different).

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by eravnrekaree on Friday May 28, @03:21PM (2 children)

    by eravnrekaree (555) on Friday May 28, @03:21PM (#1139658)

    Remember back when COVID was starting Trump would say the death rate is "very, very, very very low" and "most survive", "99% survive". This also applies to Measles and Polio, its within that same 0.5%-2% death range. So apparently this is the new standard in the GOP, if a virus kills 1% of the population, or 0.5% of the population, its not a problem, just let it spread and kill and dont worry, You can sort of tell, they might actually think killing off 1% of the population is a good thing, something they laugh about, more on that later. This is part of the numbers fallacy of their idiotic dumb as rocks base to whom 99% sounds "very very safe, very big number", forgetting this means millions of deaths with high contagion diseases. Would people get on an airline where 99% of passengers survive? The 99% thing shows you are not dealing with very bright people, you are dealing with "big number sounds good, duh" Homer Simpson people.

    I find the whole thing to be baffling and it looks like the anti-vaxxer groups, operating from the fringe whacko Ayn Rand type libertarian groups, such as Hoover Institution and AIER, the Great Barrington Declaration people, have gotten a grip on the GOP, You would think It will destroy the party because this is some fringe, backwards, crazy, lunatic stuff. Youd think They can't win on pushing such an asinine and wacko platform.

    I also suspect that Anti-vaxxer groups are run by a virus darwinism eugenics cult who think that viruses running amok killing people off is a good thing because it reduces in their minds overpopulation and prunes "dead wood", people they view as being weak and defective. So they think the virus killing people is a good thing.,

    The GOP policies such as opening schools with unvaccinated children, with no rapidtesting even though daily rapidtesting is doable, to ensure that the virus can continue to replicate and use that as a reservoir to then ensure the community is exposed. Its perfect because children "don't get sick" so its a perfect spread vector where they can bank on the ignorance of the public that since children don't get sick its no danger, ignoring the fact they expose their elders. Also telling people that ONLY the people who want vaccines can get them, since they are 100% effective, the people who don't want a vaccine don't have to get one and are not hurting anything else. This ignores the fact that vaccines are not very effective with immunocompromised. By blocking vaccine passports, they ensure the anti-vaxxers can spread the virus freely in public places while pretending to be vaccinated. The big irony is the people who need protection the most get the least protection from vaccines. This is why the healthy need to get vaccinated to protect the weak. The GOP is convincing the healthy to not get vaccinated, so the weak are exposed, to reduce the effectiveness of vaccines protecting the weak. After preaching herd immunity through natural infection (HITNI), now when it comes to vaccines, the anti-vaxxers are completely ignorant of herd immunity. Its like, the whole goal is to kill the weak, so herd immunity did that with natural infections, but it prevents that with vaccination. So with natural infections, they like herd immunity, but with vaccines, they do not like it.

    Evil psychos.
     

    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @03:57PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, @03:57PM (#1139681)

      if a virus kills 1% of the population, or 0.5% of the population, its not a problem, just let it spread and kill and dont worry, You can sort of tell, they might actually think killing off 1% of the population is a good thing, something they laugh about, more on that later. This is part of the numbers fallacy of their idiotic dumb as rocks base to whom 99% sounds "very very safe, very big number", forgetting this means millions of deaths with high contagion diseases. Would people get on an airline where 99% of passengers survive? The 99% thing shows you are not dealing with very bright people, you are dealing with "big number sounds good, duh" Homer Simpson people.

      They also do web design. Hence dumb shit like "Your browser is used by less than 1%. = NOT SUPPORTED!".

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @12:26AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @12:26AM (#1139896)

        Should put you in a dehydrator.

        MmmmMmmMmm, salted and spicy jerky

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by SomeGuy on Friday May 28, @03:52PM

    by SomeGuy (5632) on Friday May 28, @03:52PM (#1139678)

    In totally unrelated news, COVID-19 Wants to Abolish Ohio Lawmakers.

  • (Score: 2) by looorg on Friday May 28, @04:22PM (2 children)

    by looorg (578) on Friday May 28, @04:22PM (#1139704)

    This the same state that had a covid vaccination lottery that handed out a million bucks to some lucky person (x5) that got the shot? I guess one part of the local government isn't in sync with the other, which is quite common and sad.

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/ohio-give-people-million-covid-19-vaccine-lottery/story?id=77656133 [go.com]

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Friday May 28, @04:52PM

      by ElizabethGreene (6748) on Friday May 28, @04:52PM (#1139733)

      You're conflating incentivized voluntary behavior with involuntary behavior. There is a significant difference. You can weasel around it by saying the incentive is not going to jail, being forcefully vaccinated, or reeducated, but that's weaseling.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @08:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 29, @08:07PM (#1140096)

      What has gone wrong with America today? Do you really and genuinely not see how this is not in the least inconsistent?

      There is a difference between thinking something is good and thinking people should be *forced* to do it. Trying to persuade people to do something is one thing. Forcing them to do it is another.

1 (2) 3