this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2025
433 points (99.1% liked)

politics

25392 readers
2697 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 19 points 17 hours ago (5 children)

Vaccine skepticism isn’t so much about vaccines per se, it’s following a small movement that grew organically and fanning the flames instead of letting it die in obscurity. The purpose here is using it as a vehicle for promoting skepticism of tried and true science.

What’s the greatest enemy of authority? Tried and true facts with no room for dispute. By effectively undermining vaccines, the way is paved to continue to sow doubt and skepticism for other science, making it easier to dispute facts that can and will undermine authority without thus skepticism.

Yes, the added benefit is population control and distraction. If people are sicker and more financially blown up by medical bills they’re far too busy and demoralized to engage in revolution. And there’s less of them due to death. Brain fog from long COVID is beneficial as well.

In addition, they can pocket the funding that would otherwise go to vaccine programs.

It’s perfect, from an authoritarian viewpoint.

[–] drunkosaurus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

If people are sicker and more financially blown up by medical bills they’re far too busy and demoralized to engage in revolution

The people I would fear the most would be those with nothing to lose.

[–] RustyShackleford@literature.cafe 7 points 12 hours ago

Which is most of the population at this point. I think this will probably end up being a reminder of the old saying, "Don't count your chickens before they hatch."

[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 7 points 16 hours ago

That’s a fair point, but how many terminal cancer patients have you seen make headlines for Luigi style acts?

One of the more interesting points of that odd but good Stewart podcast in which he, a historian who studies revolutions, and the writer of Andor discussed re revolutions is how often things don’t happen even when all the formulaic boxes are checked. There is a list, a recipe, for revolution, but even when all the ingredients are there; it often fizzles.

Same thing regarding what you’re saying, I think.

load more comments (2 replies)