Total posts: 28,020
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Really? You're just gonna get rid of the most obvious town early?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Sorry Speed. It was either Chris or Speed imo. Would've put my vote on Chris last DP if I didn't die
Yeah, game was over once speed flipped town. Obvious POE.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
That's fine, walk back the statements you made in #14 and #31.
Now we are on the same page.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Your the one who keeps bringing up 15,000 dead liberals, as if it has any sort of point at all
*you're* ... and the point of the statement was to highlight the obvious ridiculous sentiment of both the OP and your claim that entire swaths of people should be slapped a pejorative label and ostracized as putting themselves at personal risk and a threat to society by listening to "Buffoons" in political power.
But to a troll, it probably looked like some pointless personal attack upon their narcissistic views.
I apologize for this if that was the case.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
I don't care for your shitposting
You're the one who posted this.
Maybe you wish to visit your great aunt Mabel with multiple co-morbidities without giving her a death sentence.
GTFO with the projecting. I really don't have the time or patience to play your trollish games.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
And the reason that you think I should call 15,000 dead liberals stupid is...?
I never said I thought you should do that. People who flippantly throw about that slander are usually themselves ignorant and/or pathologically narcissistic.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
The chance of getting smallpox in this day and age is lower than the occurrence of uneven distribution of vaccines.
No, your ridiculous shockjock edgy statement claiming if you vaccinate yourself, you will keep a possibly unvaccinated Aunt Mabel alive. That's either Trolling or a clear demonstrated ignorance of everything posted in this thread.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Maybe you wish to visit your great aunt Mabel with multiple co-morbidities without giving her a death sentence.
You really haven't read most of this thread by posting that. Either that or you are purposely trolling.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Perhaps you wish society to function normally again.
You mean when we didn't have to virtue signal our compliance to crony authority?
Sure. I'll advocate that normality.
I'm willing to call stupid people stupid certainly. I'm not sure how 15,000 dead liberals fall into it however.
Trust authority is the mantra of the left.
Created:
-->
@Athias
I would bet that most "smart" people on the left would believe kids need the Covid vaccine.
Created:
-->
@Athias
But to claim one is a "stupid GOP'er" for neither wanting nor intending to take the vaccine is another thing.
In a country where most people graduate high school with a failing proficiency of math and probability, it's no wonder that people are completely unable to make personal risk assessments. They then rely on institutions of power to make those risk assessments for them and then wonder why those institutions fail or how it is even possible.
People should at least have a basic understanding of statistics to read a report and then figure out whether or not they are at high or EXTREMELY low personal risk of dying from Covid instead of relying on, say, a Crony New York governor, a crony Teacher's union, or CNN to make those risk/reward decisions for them.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
A Constitution.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Are you willing to call 15,000 dead liberals "stupid?"
I certainly am not.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Did you actually have a relevant point to make here?
Are you willing to call 15,000 dead liberals "stupid?"
A smallpox vaccine every 5 years? Is that not a tad precautious against a disease that has been eradicated?
No more precautious than a person under 65 with no co-morbidities that has a .003% chance of dying from Covid deciding to get a vaccine since they are sooo afraid of that risk of dying.
Created:
Relying solely on the words of someone who is not a health expert, let alone a buffoon
like those 15,000 dead liberals in New York?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
When it comes to navigating the pandemic, many proudly proclaim: "Follow The Science." It's a popular and feel-good message. To me, #FollowTheScience means that science is essential to making good and rational decisions and implies that science makes policy decisions clear. The first half of that sentence is right. The second half is dangerously wrong. I think we must address what science is and is not.
Of course, science is necessary to navigate the pandemic. Science -- in the form of randomized trials -- allows us to separate therapies that work (dexamethasone) from those that do not (hydroxychloroquine). Science has allowed us to develop two mRNA vaccines, which may yet free us from this plague. The rapid development of a vaccine on this timespan is a great success of science, or as the "The Onion" reports, "Nation Can't Believe They Spent So Long Overlooking Obvious Solution Of mRNA Instructions For Spike Protein Encapsulated In Lipid Nanoparticle."
At the same time, science will never be sufficient to guide choices and trade-offs. Science cannot make value judgments. Science does not determine policy. Policy is a human endeavor that combines science with values and priorities. In other words, science can help quantify the increased risk (or lack thereof) of school reopening on SARS-Cov-2 spread, and help quantify the educational losses from continued closure, but science cannot tell you whether to open or close schools. Making the decision requires values, principles, a vision of the type of society we want to be. How much do we care about the kids that rely on public school? Is it enough to offset a theoretical (but unsubstantiated) risk of viral spread? On this topic, I agree with others that we have chosen poorly.
When it comes to COVID-19 policy, we have faced and continue to face immense trade-offs. Every restriction we place may slow viral spread, but may carry dozens of unforeseen countervailing consequences. Scientists can help define these trade-offs, but scientists have no special ability to speak about values on behalf of all citizens. In other words, science is necessary but not sufficient to deal with COVID-19. Thinking otherwise is a dangerous view that steals political power from people and gives it to scientists under false pretenses.
There are several other misconceptions about science in the age of COVID-19. Let me discuss a few.
1. Credentialism is not science. Science is not the degrees someone has or where they trained. Is their view justified or is it unsupported? I joke that when someone disagrees with you about COVID-19 policy, you ask if they have an MD, MPH, PhD, faculty appointment, policy expertise, and infectious disease background. But if they agree with you, none of that matters. They are a self-taught savant and amateur expert!
2. Science is not dogmatic; it demands testable, falsifiable hypotheses. The hallmark of science is that when there are competing ideas, we can agree on studies that will decide who is correct. Believing in things that cannot be falsified or tested is religion. Science is everything else. I worry we have a lot of religion when it comes to COVID-19.
3. Science is never censoring. Over the course of the pandemic, YouTube removed videos by university professors with unpopular views, and Facebook and Twitter have labeled some posts as false or inaccurate. Even if we disagree with these speakers, this is dangerous. Science is the idea that we must confront, discuss, debate, and refute ideas. Using brute force, the power of the platform, to proclaim the truth is antithetical to our creed.
The simple fact is that most heretical ideas will turn out to be false, but some may be true. Academic freedom is the idea that we allow many people to be wrong, so that some may be right. That doesn't mean we blindly accept everything folks say, in fact, it means the opposite, we must interrogate and challenge them, but we must create an environment where folks can argue their case, even if initially unpopular.
4. Science is not a popularity contest of consensus. In an era of petitions, it seems as if science is the belief that most scientists hold. This is incorrect. Science is a process to make sense of the world, and folks in the minority may well be vindicated. In fact, throughout history, there have been many moments in medicine where the majority was wrong.
5. Science is applying criticism impartially, equally, fairly. Let's say there are two studies about masks. One is a randomized trial with a wide confidence interval, the other is a retrospective observational study with myriad deficiencies. It is completely fine to fault the RCT for having results that are compatible with a broad range of outcomes, and I did, but one cannot celebrate the observational study as "proving masks work" simply because its conclusion aligns with one's worldview. In other words, we have to apply critical appraisal fairly. If we try to convince others that weak or faulty evidence proves something works, we are not scientists, but magicians.
6. Observational studies on hot topics are a self-fulfilling prophecy. For popular and debated questions, such as the benefit of hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, and other interventions, retrospective observational studies are guaranteed to give you what you wish. I don't mean any specific study will be positive or negative, but some studies will be positive and some will be negative.
Consider this: there are thousands of datasets, and tens of thousands of investigators and these folks carry strong biases in both directions (that an intervention helps or is useless), and there is enough flexibility in analysis, that it is guaranteed with enough time, we will get observational studies showing that these practices help or hurt. The only way out of the maze is randomization. Randomized trials are desperately needed on hot topics, as these constrain multiple testing, and limit analytic flexibility through pre-specified protocols.
7. What works, in theory, does not always work in practice. There is an entire branch of science called Implementation science, which studies the gap between what works in ideal settings and what works given the messy realities of the real world. Some scientists fault the public for not heeding public health recommendations, but these folks miss the point. How you communicate your message and the sustainability and uptake of your message are part of the intervention itself, and you must be judged by what is achieved. Public policy is a pragmatic science. It is what happens when science meets real life.
Science is a tool. It is quite possibly the best tool human beings have ever devised, but just like any tool, it has limits. It cannot tell you how to adjudicate trade-offs. It is not merely what the majority believe. It requires open-mindedness and humility. It may not offer insights where bias and multiple hypothesis testing dominate. It requires one to constantly question one's assumptions, to devise experiments that may surprise. It is necessary to battle a pandemic, but it is not sufficient. We can and should embrace science, but we cannot follow it. It is up to us to make the hard choices. Not scientists.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
He can probably only feel what Fauci tells him to feel.
Sad result of public education.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Why did you tell me to kill you and you didn't kill me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
POE
I was just waiting for Bullish to get on and vote.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
the commonly cited number is three fourths or eigthy percent needing vaccinated to reach herd immunity,
GOP men are around 20%, so you are gucci. Turn the panic knob down a notch.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I mean it's fine if you really are invested in labeling people instead of ideas or policies, but citing Fauci doesn't lend much weight to your opinions.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Like fauci.
Fauci is a politician.
People like you that listen to him are the main reason why schools are still closed.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
they say only two thirds of folks want to be vaccinated, and that might not be enough to reach herd immunity.
Who is "they" and what do you know about herd immunity?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Why do you care?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
I know it's not a popular opinion, but Wylted's mental instabilities and potentially criminal speech under current laws presented an unfair risk of legal liability to the site with some of his conversations, so I think the ban was justified only because of the realities of liability today. Otherwise, he should have been free to carry on.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Yeah, I'm going to press X to doubt..
Smart man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Why would Amazon ban the sale of books opposing the progressive line on transgenderism when they stand to make a profit on them? Because Amazon is flush with cash, has a near monopoly on online shopping, and strangling political dissent is more important to those in charge than marginal profit.
One of the things that Freidman once believed but isn't relevant in today's tech economy is that the cure to pervasive monopolies is free competition. In the tech world today, you have parallel monopolies supporting each other by collaborating to destroy competition. In the case of Amazon, it kickbacks a portion of the profits to Google to ensure their competition stays below on the search results.
One student at a Q and A session gave a possible solution to this which was dismissed by Freidman at the time but probably makes more sense today. Impose increasing costs to companies that have increasing market shares on a sliding scale in order to provide an opportunity for competition. I know that the implementation of this might be wonky considering our lobby politics and that many politicians are also rewarded by monopolies through lobbies when the politicians write the exemptions and subsidies that destroy competition, but something has to be done. The fundamental reason being as Freidman said, without competition, the only person hurt is the consumer through lack of choices and opportunities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
conservatives should fight for culture and not free market captilism
They only fight for and care for one culture. DC culture.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
He... word for word, said, he would grab females by their genitals, that is literally textbook sexual assault - though its funny how predictable your response is.
He also said word for word that they let him. It's funny to even argue the premise of the locker room talk since almost all procreation involves a woman letting a man assault their pussy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
otherwise you get labeled as a flip-flopper, a turn-coat, traitor to the party
Or worse, get labeled by lobbyists as a politician that won't play by the rules of Washington DC. The career politicians know how to stay bought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
The fact that people believe democrats care about them is mind blowing.
The fact that anyone believes any entrenched people in Washington DC care is mind-blowing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Conservatives stopped believing in Capitalism when they got into the business of selling off regulations, exemptions, and subsidies to lobbies for power. Constitution was just too weak to stop it.
Cancel culture has become a right wing obsession as of late, but it’s purely a product of the free market.
Absolute bullshit. Companies wouldn't be doing this if they didn't have the government protecting them from free competition.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bullish
Nah, you and chris are town so you don't want to be the hammer. I get it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bullish
I killed Pie. I'm not scum. I am town vig even nights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
I do not think that eliminating any culture is an appropriate response to the challenges faced by certain groups.
Maybe eliminate is too harsh of a word. How about encouraging assimilation?
the product of "cracker culture"
I knew about Cracker Culture long before I knew of Sowell. It was evidenced in various heritage stories passed down from my family and a driving reason why I left New Orleans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Since we can't build a time machine and go back to 1867 and force the Southern Culture to become more in line with Hard working and virtuous Northern Culture.
And we also can't go back to 1997 when California embraced Ebonics as a genetic language based on skin color, discouraging people with Black skin and Southern Culture from integrating into the majority and objectively better Northern Culture as evidenced by the outcomes of the Civil War.
What would you suggest today as a means to gradually eliminate Southern Culture from people of all skin colors beyond just toppling a few statues?
How would you distribute these changes to tackle the pervasive Southern Culture ghettos entrenched in Northern urban centers and no longer confined to the geography south of the Mason-Dixon?
Created:
Posted in:
but Biden is not using it as a political strategy.
That's highly debatable looking at the many pro-illegal immigration lobbies that helped him get elected.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
the ultra rich have wealth that trickles down to the rest of us peons.
Probably a RINO stance, but I wouldn't know because I am not a conservative.
Peons don't have a chance to go up the heavily regulated ladder of dystopian states like California, regardless of the trickledown effects.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I couldn’t give a shit less who else supports those same positions.
That's a shame then.
they put every parent who crossed the border in criminal detention forcing the child to be separated.
Every president did this since 2008. Trump was just vocal about it.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/05/13/joint-letter-letter-president-obama-calling-end-family-detention
Presidents can't actually circumvent the laws Congress passes. You are looking at the wrong people for solutions.
Created: