this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
-34 points (9.5% liked)

Politics Unfiltered

52 readers
1 users here now

A fresh perspective on political news, spotlighting voices and viewpoints beyond the mainstream.

We dive into third-party movements, alternative policies, and underrepresented ideas, offering a space for independent thinking.

Here, diverse political opinions are encouraged, making room for honest discussions about the full spectrum of political possibilities.

founded 2 weeks ago
MODERATORS
top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] merc 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

But is putting Robert Kennedy Jr. in charge of HHS the right way to fix them?

Hahahahaha, no.

I'm not sure the premise is even sound, that the CDC, FDA and NIH have "long needed drastic reform". But, if that were true, you'd want an expert in leadership and management to address the problem, not a fucking nutjob. To reform those agencies, you'd need someone who the bureaucracies would trust has the same goals they do. Sure, there would always be people who would not want any reform, but you would also have allies who agree something needs to change, and who would support the necessary changes. Nobody at those agencies is going to listen to a fucking nutjob. Instead, they'd do everything possible to sabotage everything he was trying.

"Back in 2017, RFK Jr. talked with then-President Trump about setting up a vaccine safety review commission"

The fucking nutjob is an antivaxxer. That would be like putting a flat-earther in charge of NASA.

The whole premise is stupid. An opinion piece in a rabidly libertarian rag declares that these agencies need reform, citing other opinion pieces articles from this same rabidly libertarian rag.

These agencies may need some tweaks, but Reason magazine isn't a reputable source for what changes are needed, and RFK junior is definitely not the person who should be in charge of anything. If he tries, at best he'll merely fail. At worst he'll do serious damage to these important agencies that will take years to undo.

[–] UniversalMonk -4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

but Reason magazine isn’t a reputable source

You make a lot of great points, but I disagree about Reason not being a reputable source. I like them.

[–] merc 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yes, but that means you're not a reputable source.

[–] UniversalMonk -3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Well, you are totally welcome to think that. I respect your right to feel that way. But I'll keep posting stuff from Reason, because I like them. Thanks!

[–] merc 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Liking them isn't enough, they should be a reliable source of factual information. They're not. They're incredibly biased and their bias is towards a world view that's absurd. Just because your filter bubble feels good doesn't mean it's not harmful to you.

[–] UniversalMonk -4 points 5 days ago

Liking them isn’t enough, they should be a reliable source of factual information. They’re not.

I happen to think they are pretty reliable, and def not any less reliable than most news orgs. All news orgs are biased.

I don't think anyone on Lemmy can really talk about "filter bubble." I mean, Lemmy is an even bigger filter bubble than reddit! lol

But hey, I like them. I totally get lots of others don't. I'm cool with you thinking that. All good, friend!

[–] Tar_alcaran 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I like The Onion, buuuut...

[–] UniversalMonk -2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Then feel free to start your own community and post The Onion articles.

I created this community. And I allow posting from the Daily Mail.

Be the change you wanna see, comrade.

[–] starman2112 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Yes, by convincing a bunch of conservatives to kill themselves with listeria thus driving the population of America quickly to the left

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Not a fucking chance. Zero. That question shouldn't even be asked, because it implies the existence of doubt.