Good. I hope they keep digging that hole deeper and deeper. The mindless consumer sheep worship their celebrities so the more the media pick stupid fights like this the more their corruption gets exposed.
Is there really a finer example of the Streisand effect? If the media had never even mentioned her original tweet, if they had just said, "Oh well, so she knows someone who had an adverse reaction, big deal." and continued on, the amount of people her message would have reached would have been minimal — even with 22 million followers, most of them would have just shrugged it off. Their own intolerant insistence to destroy anyone who they disagree with only serves to create an ever-growing group seeing through their bullshit.
It's their very attitude in situations like this that keeps people away from things like the vaccination.
Want to know how they could have gotten more people to take the vaccine?
Just be open, honest, and transparent. That's literally all it would have taken.
Talk about the harm, confront the potential risks, show the science behind it, and present both sides in a way that's as truthful as possible.
There will always be people who won't want to go along. Those people will never be persuaded. No amount of coercion will change that either.
But these people just don't get it. They're that disconnected from reality. Instead, they show their true character. They go full authoritarian red-fascist tyrants.
The fact that anyone would disagree with them and not do what they demand that they do, is such a huge blow to their fragile egos. They simply can't tolerate it. This isn't about "people's health" at all; it's about gaining control over people.
One of the many reasons people on the left constantly demonstrate this behavior is pretty simple, in my opinion. They wish to exert control over others, because they lack any control over themselves and their lives.
I'm wondering if that is the end game for them. Let Nikki talk, then destroy her career as a warning to other celebs. Like someone else said, tell MMM to drop coverage of her over the weekend. Dumb public forgets and moves on, other celebrities scared to replicate said action
Andrew Breitbart has pointed out politics is downstream from culture. What you call "mindless consumer sheep" is the culture he's talking about. The weird pol-tier criticism of consoooming is still a head scratcher for me. you may hate the fact that consoomers are as mindless as they are, but they're the majority. It's bad, of course, but it will always be like this; gotta learn to work around/with it. It was no different 50 years ago.
So yeah, the normies are sheep, but you need the normies to wake up and the only way they really wake up is if celebrities and famous people and other cultural icons do shit like this.
We may hate the normies and consoomers but unfortunately we need their help to stem this bleeding.
Breitbart was wrong, it's the opposite. Politicians through their shills in pop culture push the culture change behind the scenes to make it appear that culture is changing politics organically when in fact it's the elite pushing culture through their shills and operatives to make it appear that culture is legit changing. Case in point the Sex Pistols being used by the elite to make leftist shit mainstream and discarding the band once they no longer were useful and clones started popping up organically like the Clash, Misfits then eventually pop punk like Green Day influencing an even younger gen to be leftist shills because it's cool and Will and Grace pushing the alphabet mafia agenda til we got fag sex parades and legalized gay marriage while disrupting then subverting the nuclear family into the dysfunctional mess with a 51% divorce rate we have today. Then the media get's their orders from the CIA handlers to push the "culture is changing and we should embrace it" narrative.
Yes, but... people being influenced by celebrities and talking heads on TV is a cultural phenomenon in itself, and it's fairly new, it started in the... 19th century, I guess?
In any sane culture, nobody would care about celebrities' opinions on anything. There was a time when actors were considered on the same level as whores; they would come to a town, play their performance, and if it sucked, they'd get chased out by an angry mob. Even if the people enjoyed the performance, they were still told to leave by sundown, and nobody thought to listen to them about anything.
Then, culture changed, media started promoting actors and musicians as people whose opinion mattered, and politicians leveraged that. So it still comes down to culture - in this case, a culture of celebrity worship.
They always have been. They just stopped hiding it. They have an attitude just like North Korea. ZERO dissent is tolerable and those who dissent must be swiftly punished
Want to know how they could have gotten more people to take the vaccine?
Just be open, honest, and transparent. That's literally all it would have taken.
Ha, no. This would not have worked at all. Have you read some of the original reports about messenger adenovirus technology from the last 20 years? Here are some links:
Notice a trend? The body treats the messengers as a parasite, which inevitability leads to clotting.
How well do you think that would go down with the public knowing that you run a 6 in 10 chance of the messengers getting into your bloodstream, which will inevitably lead to death either instantaneously or slowly and extremely painfully due to organ failure over a two to three year period due to thromboembolic events?
I can assure you that I've likely read much more than an overwhelming majority have on the topic. I'm well aware of mRNA's history, as well as the history of failures in attempting to make vaccines for coronoavirus's to begin with. My post history should make that clear. I'm even more aware of the adverse reactions being reported (or lack thereof), the potential risks of ADE, the toxic pathogenic spike protein, myocarditis, Bell's Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, the terrifying prospect of Marek's Disease, other protein related inflammation, reproductive issues, and so much more.
You seem to be the one lacking understanding of what I'm saying. I'm not saying they should put forth these ideas and spam headlines with them. Nuance does exist, you know? I'm speaking solely on the best way for them to gain compliance. I'm saying they should openly acknowledge the present problems honestly and not not explicitly lie or try to obfuscate information. The very same people refusing right now are the ones who have likely taken the time to look into things a bit more. When they do search out information, instead of finding honest answers, scientists giving them answers and working towards solutions, debates helping to alleviate concerns, etc., they're finding the exact opposite; our institutions saying those things simply don't exist and a mountain of shit being censored.
If the actual goal is to try and get people who are undecided to participate in the vaccination program, then they're doing a terrible job by essentially lying straight to them. Even your example they could take time to publicly confront and explain; however, they don't. In most cases, they simply say, "Consensus is that it's safe." Which really seems to be a theme, doesn't it? Even out of the nearly one hundred or more medical studies I've read over this last 9 months or so, no matter the information contained inside and how it presents the potential for some serious issues, for some reason, they all include that within their study: "The vaccine is currently considered safe and people should be encouraged to take it, now let us tell you how it's harming hundreds of thousands."
But I don't believe the goal isn't getting hesitant people vaccinated; it's to form a narrative. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that the vast majority of what's been taking place isn't based around science but instead based around politics. They're trying to create another situation similar to Trump vs. the left, where everyone associated with a specific group is dehumanized, villainized, denigrated, smeared, lied about, and made to look stupid. They're probably doing this because in the future they have plans to enforce more severe measures and need a scapegoat that's been firmly implanted in people's minds to use. They're gaslighting to get people to accept authoritarianism because they'll be made to believe it's the "moral" thing to do.
Currently, we still don't know what the long-term effects of the vaccines will be. One thing is for certain, if Israel — or hell, even Mongolia — are any indication, it's not going to be pretty. The most concerning part is that as they build towards this narrative, should the worst outcome come to pass and everyone becomes terribly ill because of the vaccine program, they'll very likely use the unvaxxed as the reason for that. At that point, it's entirely possible that we can expect some seriously dark shit to happen. Presently, I'm hoping that won't be the case.
The very same people refusing right now are the ones who have likely taken the time to look into things a bit more. When they do search out information, instead of finding honest answers, scientists giving them answers and working towards solutions, debates helping to alleviate concerns, etc., they're finding the exact opposite; our institutions saying those things simply don't exist and a mountain of shit being censored.
I think, in their minds, it's the only way to get people to comply.
Allowing people to ask hard questions and allowing scientists and medical professional to give any sort of honest answer would turn off any common-minded individual who actually cares about their health. Plus those same people could then use health professional statements as citations about the harms of the vaccines, which, as you mentioned, couldn't be allowed as it would break the narrative.
Getting all the scientists to lie about it makes it really hard, almost nigh impossible, to quote a legitimate institution about the dangers of mRNA technology or the SAEs associated with the vax. So, I'm guessing that's why they were just going to lie all along and keep repeating the "safe and effective" routine, even if it meant people cracking away at the narrative at various opporutnities... such as a twerking rap star known for her large posterior.
The most concerning part is that as they build towards this narrative, should the worst outcome come to pass and everyone becomes terribly ill because of the vaccine program, they'll very likely use the unvaxxed as the reason for that.
Right, they're already using the unvaxxed narrative now to pin all the variant strains on them, even though we already know the variants are replicating from the vaccinated.
I imagine they'll blame many of the upcoming sicknesses and deaths during the fall/winter on the unvaccinated to go full-blown authoritarian on mandates and boosters.
I agree with this wholeheartedly, transparency is a usually a good thing. However this situation requires them to be dishonest, because when they are asked "Does the vaccine work and does it have long term side effects?" All they can respond with is "we don't know"
If they were honest and didn't force people to get the jab, I wouldn't be surprised if the vaccination rate was significantly lower. But the propaganda has worked on all the normies
Good. I hope they keep digging that hole deeper and deeper. The mindless consumer sheep worship their celebrities so the more the media pick stupid fights like this the more their corruption gets exposed.
Is there really a finer example of the Streisand effect? If the media had never even mentioned her original tweet, if they had just said, "Oh well, so she knows someone who had an adverse reaction, big deal." and continued on, the amount of people her message would have reached would have been minimal — even with 22 million followers, most of them would have just shrugged it off. Their own intolerant insistence to destroy anyone who they disagree with only serves to create an ever-growing group seeing through their bullshit.
It's their very attitude in situations like this that keeps people away from things like the vaccination.
Want to know how they could have gotten more people to take the vaccine?
Just be open, honest, and transparent. That's literally all it would have taken.
Talk about the harm, confront the potential risks, show the science behind it, and present both sides in a way that's as truthful as possible.
There will always be people who won't want to go along. Those people will never be persuaded. No amount of coercion will change that either.
But these people just don't get it. They're that disconnected from reality. Instead, they show their true character. They go full authoritarian red-fascist tyrants.
The fact that anyone would disagree with them and not do what they demand that they do, is such a huge blow to their fragile egos. They simply can't tolerate it. This isn't about "people's health" at all; it's about gaining control over people.
One of the many reasons people on the left constantly demonstrate this behavior is pretty simple, in my opinion. They wish to exert control over others, because they lack any control over themselves and their lives.
I'm wondering if that is the end game for them. Let Nikki talk, then destroy her career as a warning to other celebs. Like someone else said, tell MMM to drop coverage of her over the weekend. Dumb public forgets and moves on, other celebrities scared to replicate said action
Andrew Breitbart has pointed out politics is downstream from culture. What you call "mindless consumer sheep" is the culture he's talking about. The weird pol-tier criticism of consoooming is still a head scratcher for me. you may hate the fact that consoomers are as mindless as they are, but they're the majority. It's bad, of course, but it will always be like this; gotta learn to work around/with it. It was no different 50 years ago.
So yeah, the normies are sheep, but you need the normies to wake up and the only way they really wake up is if celebrities and famous people and other cultural icons do shit like this.
We may hate the normies and consoomers but unfortunately we need their help to stem this bleeding.
Breitbart was wrong, it's the opposite. Politicians through their shills in pop culture push the culture change behind the scenes to make it appear that culture is changing politics organically when in fact it's the elite pushing culture through their shills and operatives to make it appear that culture is legit changing. Case in point the Sex Pistols being used by the elite to make leftist shit mainstream and discarding the band once they no longer were useful and clones started popping up organically like the Clash, Misfits then eventually pop punk like Green Day influencing an even younger gen to be leftist shills because it's cool and Will and Grace pushing the alphabet mafia agenda til we got fag sex parades and legalized gay marriage while disrupting then subverting the nuclear family into the dysfunctional mess with a 51% divorce rate we have today. Then the media get's their orders from the CIA handlers to push the "culture is changing and we should embrace it" narrative.
Yes, but... people being influenced by celebrities and talking heads on TV is a cultural phenomenon in itself, and it's fairly new, it started in the... 19th century, I guess?
In any sane culture, nobody would care about celebrities' opinions on anything. There was a time when actors were considered on the same level as whores; they would come to a town, play their performance, and if it sucked, they'd get chased out by an angry mob. Even if the people enjoyed the performance, they were still told to leave by sundown, and nobody thought to listen to them about anything.
Then, culture changed, media started promoting actors and musicians as people whose opinion mattered, and politicians leveraged that. So it still comes down to culture - in this case, a culture of celebrity worship.
They always have been. They just stopped hiding it. They have an attitude just like North Korea. ZERO dissent is tolerable and those who dissent must be swiftly punished
Ha, no. This would not have worked at all. Have you read some of the original reports about messenger adenovirus technology from the last 20 years? Here are some links:
Liver failure: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1900148/
Cytokine storms: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17148587/
Platalet aggregation and clumping: https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/mmr.2013.1805
Notice a trend? The body treats the messengers as a parasite, which inevitability leads to clotting.
How well do you think that would go down with the public knowing that you run a 6 in 10 chance of the messengers getting into your bloodstream, which will inevitably lead to death either instantaneously or slowly and extremely painfully due to organ failure over a two to three year period due to thromboembolic events?
I can assure you that I've likely read much more than an overwhelming majority have on the topic. I'm well aware of mRNA's history, as well as the history of failures in attempting to make vaccines for coronoavirus's to begin with. My post history should make that clear. I'm even more aware of the adverse reactions being reported (or lack thereof), the potential risks of ADE, the toxic pathogenic spike protein, myocarditis, Bell's Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, the terrifying prospect of Marek's Disease, other protein related inflammation, reproductive issues, and so much more. You seem to be the one lacking understanding of what I'm saying. I'm not saying they should put forth these ideas and spam headlines with them. Nuance does exist, you know? I'm speaking solely on the best way for them to gain compliance. I'm saying they should openly acknowledge the present problems honestly and not not explicitly lie or try to obfuscate information. The very same people refusing right now are the ones who have likely taken the time to look into things a bit more. When they do search out information, instead of finding honest answers, scientists giving them answers and working towards solutions, debates helping to alleviate concerns, etc., they're finding the exact opposite; our institutions saying those things simply don't exist and a mountain of shit being censored.
If the actual goal is to try and get people who are undecided to participate in the vaccination program, then they're doing a terrible job by essentially lying straight to them. Even your example they could take time to publicly confront and explain; however, they don't. In most cases, they simply say, "Consensus is that it's safe." Which really seems to be a theme, doesn't it? Even out of the nearly one hundred or more medical studies I've read over this last 9 months or so, no matter the information contained inside and how it presents the potential for some serious issues, for some reason, they all include that within their study: "The vaccine is currently considered safe and people should be encouraged to take it, now let us tell you how it's harming hundreds of thousands."
But I don't believe the goal isn't getting hesitant people vaccinated; it's to form a narrative. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that the vast majority of what's been taking place isn't based around science but instead based around politics. They're trying to create another situation similar to Trump vs. the left, where everyone associated with a specific group is dehumanized, villainized, denigrated, smeared, lied about, and made to look stupid. They're probably doing this because in the future they have plans to enforce more severe measures and need a scapegoat that's been firmly implanted in people's minds to use. They're gaslighting to get people to accept authoritarianism because they'll be made to believe it's the "moral" thing to do.
Currently, we still don't know what the long-term effects of the vaccines will be. One thing is for certain, if Israel — or hell, even Mongolia — are any indication, it's not going to be pretty. The most concerning part is that as they build towards this narrative, should the worst outcome come to pass and everyone becomes terribly ill because of the vaccine program, they'll very likely use the unvaxxed as the reason for that. At that point, it's entirely possible that we can expect some seriously dark shit to happen. Presently, I'm hoping that won't be the case.
I agree completely. I still wouldn't take the shot, but they're clearly losing some people due to the aggressive censorship.
I think, in their minds, it's the only way to get people to comply.
Allowing people to ask hard questions and allowing scientists and medical professional to give any sort of honest answer would turn off any common-minded individual who actually cares about their health. Plus those same people could then use health professional statements as citations about the harms of the vaccines, which, as you mentioned, couldn't be allowed as it would break the narrative.
Getting all the scientists to lie about it makes it really hard, almost nigh impossible, to quote a legitimate institution about the dangers of mRNA technology or the SAEs associated with the vax. So, I'm guessing that's why they were just going to lie all along and keep repeating the "safe and effective" routine, even if it meant people cracking away at the narrative at various opporutnities... such as a twerking rap star known for her large posterior.
Right, they're already using the unvaxxed narrative now to pin all the variant strains on them, even though we already know the variants are replicating from the vaccinated.
I imagine they'll blame many of the upcoming sicknesses and deaths during the fall/winter on the unvaccinated to go full-blown authoritarian on mandates and boosters.
I agree with this wholeheartedly, transparency is a usually a good thing. However this situation requires them to be dishonest, because when they are asked "Does the vaccine work and does it have long term side effects?" All they can respond with is "we don't know"
If they were honest and didn't force people to get the jab, I wouldn't be surprised if the vaccination rate was significantly lower. But the propaganda has worked on all the normies