But we can stop lying about the definition of a recession. Biden admin changing the definition to avoid loss political points is about as nonsensical as blaming inflation squarely on Putin. The disinformation needs to stop.
I don't get why people are getting all riled up by this. Of course the White House will try to put a positive spin on things, the same would have been done by the Republican party (or any other political party in the world). As noted above the President can't technically change the definition of a recession anyway, it's another agency that does that. So much ado about nothing...
protip: everyone can perceive which ways the parties are different, when people refer to both sides they are referring to the ways they are the same, not the ways they are different
Yeah; but people get cranky when you point out that one side is propped up by foreign propagandists that have explicitly said they're trying to destabilize the US.
Is the "liberal media" mentioning it or doing wall to wall coverage on this non-scandal? I'm hearing this talking point from relatives so I assume it is getting the wall to wall treatment on right-wing partisan news.
I think the more harmful thing this extreme political shitfighting is doing is stopping just seriously getting on with doing everything possible to improve things.
"We're not actually in a recession." So what?! Just acknowledge things aren't good and get to fixing them, be honest with the public and have some bloody integrity for once.
The US (and UK, and Australia, etc) partisan political playground fighting is ridiculous and the media (inc. social media) spends far too much time supporting it.
If a placebo can cure an ailment caused by sentiment then should the patient be lied to? How much of a recession is consumer sentiment? And is lying always a bad thing?
That change isn't significant. Vaccines in the past have not had 100% effectiveness, and we all know that. There've been mumps outbreaks that were primarily among the vaccinated, despite that vaccine having a very high effectiveness. The reason they were primarily among the vaccinated? Vaccination rates were well over 90%, so even with a 90% rate of success the odds favored some getting the illness.
Cases were mild as the vaccine provided the expected protection. This is not new.
It's similar to global warming/climate change. Moving from the former to the latter wasn't some nefarious plot to move the goalposts. The former is an imprecise term which hadn't mattered very much until that imprecision began to be weaponized by those with an agenda.
Same thing with vaccines, the previous definition was inaccurate--but up until the covid vaccines, nobody pretended to be bothered by it. There hasn't been any notable effort to discredit flu vaccines because they don't offer permanent, or even particularly reliable immunity in the many years that they have existed. Along came the anti covid vaccine folks to weaponize the inaccurate definition--so, in response, the definition is updated to be more accurate.
How often do you get to a successful resolution of a dispute when you start from the position that one side's concerns are made up (pretended, imagined, etc)?
> There hasn't been any notable effort to discredit flu vaccines because they don't offer permanent, or even particularly reliable immunity in the many years that they have existed.
These are the reasons that I never opted to get the flu shot, and I never had my professional and social lives threatened as a result.
> How often do you get to a successful resolution of a dispute when you start from the position that one side's concerns are made up (pretended, imagined, etc)?
There are times when one side's concerns are nonsense. Brainwashed Russians believing Ukraine is overrun by Nazis. People who believe that the 2020 election was stolen. I choose not to gaslight myself into entertaining that nonsense and entertaining the notion that there's a successful resolution to be had.
