The SCOTUS didn't strike down any legal opposition to the vaccines or mandates. They dismissed the rulings that had previously been made, some for and some against.
This in no way prevents or inhibits legal opposition. It can very well be seen as a set back, because if (when?) the federal govt tried to implement vaccine mandates in the future, cases would be have to be brought again, because the legal precedents that were set were vacated, meaning they were wiped in terms of having legal precedent.
Framing this as "striking down any legal opposition to " mandates etc, is extremely bogus. It's not factual.
I suggest you might not get as many clicks if you actually just stick to factual information instead of posting things with narrative spin, but you'd be doing the board a favor by practicing a higher standard and not encouraging hyper emotionalized reactions that merely stimulate narrative spin as opposed to clear thinking, objective evaluation and free thought.
My problem is, that sometimes, in order to attempt bringing balance to an emotionally charged subject, I lean too far and end up tipping the boat over!!!!
But seriously, thanks for the feedback! Fortunately, pretty much all of us are on the same team, so a bit of back and forth helps to broaden our overall views.
“
I suggest you might not get as many clicks if you actually just stick to factual information instead of posting things with narrative spin, but you'd be doing the board a favor by practicing a higher standard and not encouraging hyper emotionalized reactions that merely stimulate narrative spin as opposed to clear thinking, objective evaluation and free thought”
This can also be said by way too many posts on here. Less hyperbole the better.
I think it's a balance, but I also think it behooves the mods and the board to think of ways that higher quality posting can be encouraged and posts that lean toward the tabloidish can be discouraged. But as I said, it's a balance. The OP did post a good link, which helped, imo.
Came here to say this. Injunctive relief is extraordinary relief. Once the mandate was removed there is nothing for the courts to hear. That's why Biden Admin vacated the mandate before there could be a ruling.
The other article I'm wary of, because of all the emotionally charged terms, narratives and stories they use. I should go and read it to get a better idea, but I went to the more factual article as a preference.
I actually just complained about this sort of practice a day or two ago. Just posting headlines from all over the internet about anything gums up the board. Either take the time to read the article yourself and create your own title with an understanding that more accurately reflects the contents of said article that doesn’t reflect the clickbait nature of the original headline or don’t post it at all. If we wanted to read clickbait garbage we wouldn’t be here. I think these are low effort posts and somehow a rule should be established by the mods to deal with it as they are becoming increasingly prevalent and work contrary to the function of the board. Anybody can just copy and past clickbait headlines all day and it shouldn’t be allowed.
Your headline is extremely misleading and full of interpretation.
I read through the source article: at https://thevaccinereaction.org/
The SCOTUS didn't strike down any legal opposition to the vaccines or mandates. They dismissed the rulings that had previously been made, some for and some against.
This in no way prevents or inhibits legal opposition. It can very well be seen as a set back, because if (when?) the federal govt tried to implement vaccine mandates in the future, cases would be have to be brought again, because the legal precedents that were set were vacated, meaning they were wiped in terms of having legal precedent.
Framing this as "striking down any legal opposition to " mandates etc, is extremely bogus. It's not factual.
I suggest you might not get as many clicks if you actually just stick to factual information instead of posting things with narrative spin, but you'd be doing the board a favor by practicing a higher standard and not encouraging hyper emotionalized reactions that merely stimulate narrative spin as opposed to clear thinking, objective evaluation and free thought.
$0.02
Thanks for bringing some balance to an emotionally charged subject.
kek.
My problem is, that sometimes, in order to attempt bringing balance to an emotionally charged subject, I lean too far and end up tipping the boat over!!!!
But seriously, thanks for the feedback! Fortunately, pretty much all of us are on the same team, so a bit of back and forth helps to broaden our overall views.
On this I am in agreement. Well stated sir.
Well you're not alone. I try to bring balance or refute silly posts when I can.
“ I suggest you might not get as many clicks if you actually just stick to factual information instead of posting things with narrative spin, but you'd be doing the board a favor by practicing a higher standard and not encouraging hyper emotionalized reactions that merely stimulate narrative spin as opposed to clear thinking, objective evaluation and free thought”
This can also be said by way too many posts on here. Less hyperbole the better.
I think it's a balance, but I also think it behooves the mods and the board to think of ways that higher quality posting can be encouraged and posts that lean toward the tabloidish can be discouraged. But as I said, it's a balance. The OP did post a good link, which helped, imo.
Came here to say this. Injunctive relief is extraordinary relief. Once the mandate was removed there is nothing for the courts to hear. That's why Biden Admin vacated the mandate before there could be a ruling.
It's not my headline. It's their headline. I just use it as it is. I am sorry you don't like it.
Do you think its helpful to just post sensationalist headlines as is, and that as posters, we have no responsibility to vet what we're posting?
When you post it, it becomes YOUR headline, imo.
I don't know that it's that I don't like it. I like the article that they quoted: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2023/12/supreme-court-wipes-out-three-rulings-rejecting-federal-covid-vaccine-mandate/
Which you also linked (which was very good).
The other article I'm wary of, because of all the emotionally charged terms, narratives and stories they use. I should go and read it to get a better idea, but I went to the more factual article as a preference.
If it’s not your headline put it in quotes. That’s what they are for.
Oh. I got it. Thanks.
I actually just complained about this sort of practice a day or two ago. Just posting headlines from all over the internet about anything gums up the board. Either take the time to read the article yourself and create your own title with an understanding that more accurately reflects the contents of said article that doesn’t reflect the clickbait nature of the original headline or don’t post it at all. If we wanted to read clickbait garbage we wouldn’t be here. I think these are low effort posts and somehow a rule should be established by the mods to deal with it as they are becoming increasingly prevalent and work contrary to the function of the board. Anybody can just copy and past clickbait headlines all day and it shouldn’t be allowed.
Hear, hear!
Thank you!