We know Biden has used his slurs/gaffes to send comms and this comment was also "off-script". It's perfect because the gaffe makes headlines so the comm receiver definitely gets the message and doesn't have to watch an entire talk.
Q posts 1230, 1231, 1232 https://qalerts.app/?q=%231230%7C%231231%7C%231232
12+30 = Q Post 42 https://qalerts.app/?q=%2342
Q Post 3012 https://qalerts.app/?q=%233012
Any other suggestions?
1.) Blog writers are not impartial, they monetize the blog. And if they want to make a living off of the blog, they will keep posting what attracts the most attention, as long as people buy their merch, crypto coin, or whatever else.
2.) Political writers are not impartial, which should be obvious, because they will cater to their own political beliefs, and their audiences.
The solution, which is taught in school, is to look at every possible writer, journalist, and even media article that exists, and parse the most likely information. This includes challenging one's own confirmation bias. It's a long process to critically research one subject at a time, but it's something I rarely see on this board. Here, I find people just look at two blogs with the same opinion, and go "yep, that's it!" without even a question or critical viewpoint.
1.) I never said I'm against monetization. I said "many" blogs don't get funding from big pharma which is relevant if you want impartial information regarding vaccines. Notice how extremely specific I'm being here. I don't think the wordpress blog I linked too is being funded by "Big Conspiracy". So his opinion is probably his genuine take on the situation. That's the best we can ask for in life.
A lot of podcasts I listen to have commercials for men's hygiene and prepper companies. So you would think they would be biased towards doom and gloom. However, when you listen to Steve Turley, The Liberal Hivemind, X22 Report and many others, it's actually all 100% optimism. The only people I know who doom and gloom are people who listen to Fox News. Another notch for the indie podcasters vs mainstream.
2.) Political writers are not impartial, but again, the question is are they making their arguments in good faith. It doesn't mean they're right, but you brought up the idea that we can dismiss someone based on the mode of communication they use...or am I mistaken?
I think if you look closer, you'll find people are very skeptical on this forum. We are constantly calling each other out for "Datefagging". We are also constantly asking for the "sauce" because we may want to share something, but we need to verify it first. These are two examples I can't imagine you missed if you've been around for just a week.
We also have people in here with the sole purpose of sharing and agreeing with off the wall theories to make us look stupid and hope that maybe some of us will share them in our own circles and discredit us to the outside world.
My main point of contention is with the "skepticism" here, it never involves one of the core tenants of critical thinking: researching against your own confirmation bias. You must always try to disprove an article/belief in order to see if your article/belief is more plausible, or if the source you found is wrong.
I once brought this up to Ashlandog, when he posted a verifiably false article, and his response was: "sometimes you have to grab the ball and run with it son". He was essentially saying that he will continue to throw spaghetti at the wall with (fake) articles, just to see if one of them eventually sticks. However, the problem with that is that he is consistently spreading false information, and thus muddying the waters for everyone else. So I don't think the people here are as discerning as you believe them to be.
Forums are not a perfect system for discerning and disseminating the truth, but what system is? Crowdsourcing is a pretty damn good system compared to most other systems where it's top down with government approved experts.
I think this forum has been right on the major core issues over time. In the short term, theories are throw around but are forgotten when there isn't much meat to them.
I think we're all very well aware of the arguments from the mainstream and the left. They are mainstream because everyone knows what they are. It's not a secret what CNN, NIH, Fauci, CDC, FDA and others think. It's screamed from the roof top 24/7. We're the ones being censored. It's the other side that doesn't care to research against their own confirmation bias. They just walk lockstep with the government narrative. That's not hard to do.
Regardless of what side is screeching, always look at personal responsibility when it comes to confirmation bias. Even though there is a narrative to mainstream media, there is also a narrative in the Q-ecosystem (the Plan, DS, etc). Both narratives deserve equal amounts of scrutiny, and you cannot ignore your own bias because you like it more.