Total posts: 2,178
If someone has natural immunity, the vaccine can only harm them. Even if the chance of a complication is rare, or even if the side effect is just feeling sick for a few days, the net effect is negative. How is a negative cost/benefit analysis not a valid reason to refuse the shot?
I saw a video from the FDA panel the other day, I will see if I can find it, where the expert said that for young men under 40 with no comorbidities the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine outweighs the risks of covid itself. If the vaccine works why do you care if other people have it or not
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's so much dna mixing that it's really hard even to find a pure race today. Almost everyone in the modern world is a mutt to varying degrees.
What we consider to be "race" is socially constructed, but traits aren't evenly distributed among each group. This is a problem that should only exist for policymakers...normal people can just treat everyone they meet as individuals. There's enough variation that you can easily just do that, which is what all normal people do
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
But beyond that, the problem is that there is no reason whatsoever to believe genetic differences in racial groups would ever be different enough to account for any significant portion of racial inequality. There’s no race gene, and there’s no practical way to separate ones genetics from the impact society has each individual based on what they look like. The “science” on this will always be flawed, so it will always come down to what your personal biases make out of it.
No, the science is objective and could probably be determined within the next decade or so, if it hasn't already, as the human genome continues to be studied. The genes which correlate with all kinds of abilities are already being discovered and we will know very soon what the distribution patterns of these genes are like...if people are allowed to study it and share the results.
The bolded part is just a bare assertion. It very well could. In fact, the null hypothesis should be that it does, because there is no reason to assume that adaptation resulting in phenotypical differences stopped at the brain.
The best arguments against race realism come from science, for example, the fact that owing to some severe population bottlenecks our ancestors went through in the distant past, through which only around 1% of them emerged, humans are not all that genetically diverse. I truly don't know what can or can't be attributed to genetics but dismissing the subject out of hand is ludicrous. I'm gonna hold firm in my position that at least some of the disparities between racial groups is due to genetics, and some is due to environment, and I can be convinced about how important each are.
I really hate the emotional shutting down of the subject, especially when it means that all disparity gets blamed on my group. If we have to have a "conversation about race" everything needs to be on the table. If not, I'm happy to shut up about it provided the left does too, but I'm not unilaterally disarming.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
the problem is that there is no meaningful application for it other than to justify deliberately maintaining racial inequities under the guise of scientific legitimacy.
There’s always a useful application for truth. If it’s true that traits are not evenly distributed between groups than inequality between groups is not racist. The question then becomes how much is genetic, how much is cultural, how much is environmental…which is above my pay grade. But it shouldn’t be above the pay grade of the people making policy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
At this time, “race realism” as its currently presented by multiple individuals and organizations is primarily a pseudoscientific (and above I broadly explain the why) attempt to justify those groups own prejudice, rather than an honest attempt to determine what aspects of our genes and environment are responsible for our ability to succeed; and how do they differ between different groups.As I kinda said at the end; the issue with me specifically is not that such actual differences are impossible, or should not be discussed; but that those who promote this form of race realism aren’t actually doing that.Or in other words; those who are advancing “race realism”, are trying to piss on people’s heads and tell them it’s raining,Explicitly objecting to that approach, and explicitly calling them out in it does not imply or suggest that I am adverse to talking meteorology, or trying to argue rain cannot exist.
Fair enough, so humor me a bit. An average Han Chinese person and a Zulu person look very different. The null hypothesis should obviously be that adaption didn't stop with differences in phenotype, and would extend to physical and cognitive abilities as well. Do you believe this, and if not why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Can you give me examples of observations within 'race realism' and proponents of it that aren't racist?One thing I have an issue with is that it's called 'race realism' as opposed to 'ethnic observations'. The reason I have an issue with 'race' as opposed to 'ethnic' is that you are pooling everyone of the same race into one category, that always will lead to irrational racism that ignores environmental causes for common traits. On the other hand, the reason I have an issue with 'realism' is that it is not only arrogant but doesn't make clear what the thing is. If it's just observations, there'd be no reason to need to call it that unless you were some edgy racist trying to prove a society wrong that loathed racism.
I guess it just depends on the definition of racism. I don't think there's anything inherently racist about acknowledging that genes probably aren't distributed evenly among every single group. That idea just doesn't make sense. So we would obviously expect SOME differences... this kind of thing can spill into racism incredibly quickly though, yeah
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Your response is under the presumption that it is a false idea.
As you pointed out Ramshutu and Orogami, two objectively very intelligent people, didn't actually present any argument against race realism, but instead presented arguments about why we shouldn't discuss race realism. You can tell that many liberals secretly believe that race realism/human biodiversity is real because they form a taboo around discussing the issue. Taboos and euphemisms typically form not because people are convinced of their positions, but because they are afraid of/ashamed of their own true beliefs which are not the beliefs they publicly proclaim. The point is often made that the differences between groups are cultural, but there is never any discussion about how to change cultures. Black Americans are shrinking as a percentage of the population, yet their share of violent crimes, largely inflicted upon each other, continues to grow (13/50 has become 12/57 now.) Around half of black babies are aborted. Clearly this is a culture in severe distress, but the leftist response is always to either make the subject taboo or to blame white people for the problems. Neither of these, of course, address the issue in any way.
The funny thing is I'm actually less convinced of race realism than many liberals probably are, in their heart of hearts. I believe in a soft form of it, that what we consider to be "race" is socially constructed but genes are not distributed evenly between "races", so some of the differences we see are definitely genetic. But culture and environment together account for at least 50%, from what I've seen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Afghan refugees should not be settled in the United States because their culture is not compatible with ours. For a fraction of the cost it takes to settle a refugee here, a refugee could be settled in Central Asia.
Created:
Posted in:
Are any of the people who were attacking me in this thread going to apologize? we brought in unvetted people from a culture that for centuries has condoned violence against women and the sexual exploitation of minors, and lo and behold, they are already committing sex crimes and acts of violence against women.
Created:
Posted in:
Female soldier attacked by a group of male afghan refugees: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-investigating-assault-on-female-us-servicemember-by-male-afghan-refugees-at-fort-bliss.amp
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
1) they have won the youth
2) they obviously have the will to power (look what they are trying to do with majorities far far smaller than what Trump had)
3) the existing laws in place heavily favor the left, mass immigration of groups that vote Democrat and birthright citizenship for the children of any illegals who sneak over the border that nobody has the will to defend, etc
The left actually did decisively lose the debate for the loyalties of Americans, in the 1980s. But because of the laws passed by LBJ it didn’t matter. They just had to wait it out a decade or two, run a conservatish President in Bill Clinton and by the 2000s they were back again. If it wasn’t for Hart-Celler the Democrats would have lost every single election since 1976 iirc.
The biggest issue for the left I see is that their coalition is ripe for collapse because it’s driven by white liberals but the minority voters (and the remaining clueless non ideological white democrats) dont actually want the same things as the white progressives. The most likely way the right wins in the near term is a working class white/Hispanic coalition but idk if it will pan out….
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
If mainstream press loses the public trust for objectivity, why not simply find your echo chamber of choice elsewhere? And that is exactly what’s happening, and I don’t see it changing anytime soon. National division will continue to fester, and the press will feed off it and back into it rather than attempting to recenter it.Needless to say, I don’t like to be right about these sorts of things, and I hope I am wrong…
You’re not wrong, but the point is that it already happened. That ship sailed a long time ago, and there will never be objectivity in the media ever again (if there ever was.)
National division will continue to worsen until either one side wins decisively or there’s some kind of break up. Right now I expect the left to win decisively (sadly) but the outcome isn’t certain yet. I actually think the media has gotten slightly less biased since Trump left office because he perfectly checked all the boxes to enrage the type of people who typically work for media companies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
One of my greatest sources of smug satisfaction about being an anonymous Twitter lurker is that you get to know everything in advance. You get to learn about Epstein years before he becomes a household name, and you get to learn about coronavirus in early January of 2020. Unfortunately it also makes you sound like a schizo lol.
The media is really weird regarding what they choose to report. Just the other day I saw some of them complaining how there’s a “missing white women” syndrome in media coverage…well it’s not my fault what you choose to cover. I heard people saying there were over 400 missing Native American women in Wyoming over the last decade. I thought there’s no way, that’s a state of like 600,000 people. If that were true it would be a massive story. I looked into it, and it’s actually true!
“Between 2011 and September 2020, more than 400 indigenous women and girls were reported missing in Wyoming, according to the report.
Homicide is the third-leading cause of death among Native women who are murdered at rates more than 10 times the national average, according to federal data.”
A victimization rate 10x the national average? That seems like a big story to me. I want to know more about that. Hopefully now they start to cover it
Created:
Posted in:
Cable networks took an extremely anti-Trump stance because they correctly read the room in that unlike a normal President the opposition to him was very very strong. I think he had like 40% “strongly disapprove” right off the bat. Controversy and outrage spur engagement, especially when it’s what people want to hear, and engagement is how these companies make their money. Fortunately nobody is watching anymore, I think cable news will continue to get more and more vestigial. I only watch the news for MAJOR events
I don’t actually think the media’s coverage of Trump was THAT biased—I mean it was, but people can detect bias and make their own conclusions. My problem was and still is the stuff that they refuse to report on. But it is what it is. Ultimately I think railing against the media is pointless, they’re not going to change, the negative impact is probably less than you think, and it redirects energy that should be spent elsewhere
Created:
Posted in:
It’s been a month lol https://twitter.com/adamshawny/status/1440830493423857671?s=21
Created:
-->
@Double_R
except racism/racial conflict has existed for a long by time, but publications began writing about it a lot more (it literally looks like an exponential curve!) starting around ten years ago, and public opinion followed suit. Something obviously happened to change the ideas through which many people interact with the world. I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying because I think social media had a lot to do with it, by allowing people to see and share more incidents of racism or bad police killings or whatever.
I also think generational turnover had a lot to do with it as well. After the 2000s were up there was basically nobody left in even very senior positions at universities and publications who grew up before mass media. Those early experiences obviously change how you view and interact with the world. We are going to see an even more massive change in the next few decades when the boomers finally lose their power.
I know, I know, “but Google…”This issue isn’t about statistics. All of the instances animating the left were played out publicly, in real time, over and over and over again.
I do get that. The human mind is optimized for interacting with around 150 people in a tribal setting, so specific incidents impact way more than abstract numbers. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to overcome our base instincts to understand the actual reality we’re in.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
A source can be biased and still be right, or make a compelling argument though
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
The ad hominem is that you’re attacking the opinions of the author of the source rather than the arguments. the OP should have made those arguments himself and quoted the sources, though
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
Well my goal isn’t to convert them. That would be nice but I doubt that would happen. But understanding the underlying causes and motivations behind politics is a personal, autistic interest of mine so that’s really the goal of the thread. I genuinely don’t want to argue and want them to talk to me as if they aren’t arguing with me
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
I do get it, but not everyone is a cynic. There are true believers out there, and I'm trying to understand them
Created:
-->
@oromagi
@Double_R
I disagree that racial politics is as hot on the American Left as it is on the American Right. As far as I can tell, right-wingers spend way more time worrying about race than does the left-wing.
I agree with oromagi, I think the right focuses on race far more than the left. Sure there are elements of the left that take things way too far, but so what? It’s just as absurd for the right to focus on them as it is for the left to focus on Qanon.
What did the right do to spur on a 700-1000% increase in the use of the terms "racist/racists/racism" in left leaning publications, starting around 2011? https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/media-great-racial-awakening This piece also provides empirical evidence contrasting left leaning publications with the WSJ, a center-right paper, which proves where the racial discourse is coming from (the left.) Leftists also changed their opinions on racial issues far more than conservatives did from 2011-17, 35% said racism was a "big problem" in 2011, compared with 77% in 2017. Conservative opinions also shifted, but not as drastically--and also in favor of the proposition that racism is a "big problem"
"Racial inequality" was the single most important issues among Biden voters in 2020, even exceeding coronavirus:
The right being more focused on race doesn't line up with my experiences at all, but from what I can piece together from the empirical data it is clearly the left that is more focused on race.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Have you caused the loss of generational wealth in a race, tied schools to the local area, precipitated white flight? Well, the cycle of poverty will keep that going?
Do you have statistics on how much of the wealth of the median white household dates back to the Jim Crow era or before? My impression from researching inherited wealth is that the answer is very little.
White flight occurred because of a long term rise in violent crime concentrated in urban areas beginning in the 1960s and continuing until the mid 1990s. I don’t know what you mean by “tied schools to a local area.” The laws implemented in the 1960s and continuing into the 1980s did the exact opposite of this, and forcibly integrated schools even when it meant busing in people from far away. The results were catastrophic, with gigantic rises in bullying and the complete destruction of many school districts. Here’s a good history on that: https://devinhelton.com/busing-in-boston
Did you over police black neighbourhoods because you criminalize being black, and overtly criminalize drugs used by African Americans over those used by whites, and used it to precipitate a period of mass incarceration; that damaged the generational social fabric?
We know that over policing doesn’t cause the majority of the differences in black/white arrest rates because we can compare arrest rates for violent crimes with the national crime victimization survey, which interviews victims of violent crimes about the characteristics of the assailants, and we find that the arrest rates and reported offender rates are very similar. There probably IS some truth to the fact that a larger police presence means a certain level of mischief that would go undetected in a safer area results in arrests or a police encounter, but this is just a consequence of the area being ridden with crime. 81% of black people want the police presence in their neighborhoods to stay the same or increase: https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx
It simply is not credible to argue that having more police in areas that have more crime, a policy that is supported by the people living in those areas who want to be protected from violent criminals, is a systemically racist policy.
…, or police them in a way that is more likely to lead to a detection of a crime , force them to plea bargain because they’re poor; send them to prison, give them tough parole conditions that makes it hard to hold down regular inflexible jobs they could find as an ex-con once they leave; then throw the book at them if they then turn to crime, or violate parole; breaking up families, leading to social de-cohesion that then increases poor behaviour at school…
The US criminal justice system needs reform, no doubt. I’m also bothered by the fact that life for ex cons, who supposedly have fulfilled their debt to society, is made so incredibly difficult. But flawed though the justice system may be, the people involved with it are not there because we have criminalized “being black.” They are there because they chose to commit crimes. If they chose not to commit crimes, they would not be there. Punishing a criminal is not an example of systemic racism. A shitty system is not an example of systemic racism. We would be in agreement that a system that prioritizes rehabilitation and post offense life would be superior for society. But that doesn’t mean the system we do have is “systemically racist” just because it’s garbage in a lot of ways.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I think his explanation is valid for a certain extremely loathsome type of liberal. But I really don’t think the average Democrat is like that, even though he did absolutely nail the motivations behind certain radicals
Created:
First of all, thank you for taking the time to answer the question. Here is the part about what you said that really concerns me:
If we look at the steady march of improved enfranchisement over the course of US history, we should recognize considerable decreases in racial disparities over the past 200 years, 100 years, 50 years, even 20 years.
I actually DONT see considerable decreases in racial disparities closing in recent decades. I’m not an expert on the exact statistics but my understanding is that when it comes to statistics like homeownership, incarceration rates, or median wealth and income between blacks and whites the disparity has not really closed at all: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/04/economic-divide-black-households/%3foutputType=amp
I have my own theories for why this is, which I’ll keep private for now. The lefts narrative is that this is due to structural white supremacy, racism, etc. I personally think this is not the answer. I think the further in time we go the less credible that explanation becomes. I guess my question would be at what point would you consider these problems to be resolved, or for the racism narrative to not hold water? What if true equity is not possible?
Created:
I’m trying to understand the leftist position as much as I can. Identity politics/racial justice/ whatever you want to call it is a very hot subject for the left in America right now but on both sides I mostly see partisan saber rattling instead of discussions on policy. So I am asking in good faith: what do you actually want to do? Reparations? Economic redistribution? Hate speech laws? Etc. And at what point would you consider the issue to be resolved?
Created:
I actually agree with this to an extent. Last time I was in Hawaii I felt sick thinking about how many locals can’t afford housing because of rich mainlanders buying vacation homes that they live in a month or so a year. In a lot of touristy places (like Fredericksburg, Texas or Ouray Colorado) vacation homes and short term rentals make prospects for home ownership nightmarish for locals. It’s hard for Joe Average to compete to buy a home that could instead be turned into a business bringing in tens of thousands a year.
That said the greedy rich people buying up property narrative isn’t the majority of the problem. What people are really paying for when they buy a house is good neighbors in pleasant surroundings. High prices are part of what selects for the “good neighbor” part. The bigger culprit is the continuous centralization of jobs in the US into a handful of metro areas that only have so much land an hour outside the city center. Eventually you run out of places to build. Sure you can build high rises or whatever but it just isn’t what people want, at least not most people. But I’m hopeful that work from home or more flexible working hours and days might mitigate this a lot by allowing people to live further out of they choose.
Also the cost of homeownership in the US at least is a problem but kinda exaggerated outside of really high cost of living areas like Boston or coastal California. When people buy a house what they are really looking at isn’t the sticker price but the monthly payment, which is lowered quite a bit by rock bottom interest rates. Where I live housing prices have exploded but when you adjust for interest rates the cost increases isn’t as extreme
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think the Jews are an early indicator of what will happen to white Americans in the future. The secular/liberal ones outmarry at extremely high rates and have totally rock bottom fertility rates. They probably won’t exist in large numbers fifty years from now. the Orthodox are well above replacement and keep growing.
You can see this with dying liberal Christian denominations like the Episcopalians…a lot of the decline is people’s kids leaving the church but a huge portion of it is that the next generation just didnt materialize
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The left is going to win in the medium term for sure because they’re the ones with a will to power. Look what they’re doing with 50 senate seats and the smallest house majority this century and compare it to what Republicans did with much more sizable majorities. “That’s the way we’ve always done it” simply isn’t a compelling argument to stack up against someone pushing for change, conservatives/the right aren’t going to win anything important until there is a cultural/spiritual change that results in the right having an actual vision. My focus right now is limiting the damage that will occur until there is a viable alternative to leftism.
In the long term who knows. Leftists aren’t having kids, and I think covid has dealt a fatal blow to public schooling and potentially the university system, which will limit their ability to recruit kids from conservative households in the future. There are a bunch of weird ultra conservative and ultra religious groups with extremely high birth rates that nobody is taking about. They are small in number now but 50 years from now there will be far, far more practicing/washed out Amish, Hasidic Jews, Mennonites, fundamentalist Mormons, Latin Mass Catholics etc that will throw a wrench in things that almost nobody is predicting.
Also I think there will be lots of neo Gnosticism on the left if in fifty years time there are still racial disparities. I also don’t think that Asian people (who will continue to grow their share in this countries elites) and Hispanics (who will likely assimilate into white working class culture) will have much of an interest in mediating an ethnic conflict between whites and blacks that began centuries before they were here. The dem coalition is going to fall apart….eventually. How soon is anyone’s guess…they’ll probably have some sizable wins in the next few decades for sure
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The 2016 primary was one of the funniest things to ever happen. I don’t support Trump 2024 AT ALL for a number of reasons but I am forced to admit that him becoming President again would be one of the funniest things to ever happen as well
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
The CIA are a bad group of people. I haven’t gone deep into that particular rabbit hole yet. Sometimes US foreign policy seems so backwards and counter productive to me that I can’t tell if there’s something bubbling under the surface that I’m too stupid to figure out that makes it all make sense, if everyone is just winging it all the time, if there’s a bunch of drug running/arms smuggling/various other ways that spooks enrich themselves off the books or all of the above
Created:
Just so much unnecessary misery. I know I can be hyperbolic at times but I think there’s a strong case to be made that George W. Bush was the worst President of all time. After 9/11 he could’ve done anything. We could’ve done anything. But he did nothing with it
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
It’s the lack of accountability that gets me, if I drone striked an innocent family I would probably end up killing myself out of guilt. But this has been happening for years with no real sign of stopping, and as far as I know nobody has ever acknowledged wrongdoing. I know that there is always collateral damage in war…but it’s important to ask the question of if the war is worth fighting in the first place (spoiler: the post 9/11 wars weren’t)
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If a new variant comes along and wrecks the vaccinated it will be very bad for him. But if the virus is now endemic and is never as bad as it was before again, something that was probably close to happening with all the immunity from catching it + vaccines, he can claim credit for it. The public is a lot more in favor of covid safetyism than you or I, sadly. As opposed as I am to making children wear masks all day and as much as I think it’s a pointless and horrible thing to do…the majority doesn’t agree. It’s sad but true
Created:
I was waiting to comment on this until all the facts came out and yep, it’s as bad as it appeared to be. The military murdered an innocent man and innocent children. I understand that collateral damage happens in war but it really bothers me how there’s no accountability at all
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It probably isn’t enforceable, but it doesn’t need to be. The point was to give corporations the cover to stick their necks out. In the coming days, almost every major corporation will announce that in compliance with the new federal regulations, all employees must be vaccinated. This will happen long before the legal issue is settled, and when it is that will only matter for a few holdouts. I know a lot of governors have said they’ll fight this but I don’t really see how they’re going to do so other than the court system which, again, is too late. It’s quite clever really, I have to hand it to Biden even though I don’t like what he’s doing he’s definitely trying to rule, which is something no President has done since Nixon
I’m also interested to see what happens with booster shots. Since two dosed people are no longer “fully vaccinated”. It seems like a recipe for disaster
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The optics on this are so, so bad on multiple levels, most particularly undermining the year long claim that being vaccinated was supposed to keep you safe and now Biden is saying the unvaccinated are putting vaccinated people at risk.
I don’t know, I think that public opinion will mostly be on Biden’s side here. But it’ll be interesting to see because I know that key portions of the dem base are disproportionately unvaccinated, and this will juice turn out of people who dislike the mandate so I don’t know how it will play out.
It’s crazy that he’s going ahead with it though. I’m not a legal scholar, but if the President is allowed to do something like this I don’t see how they aren’t just an elected dictator.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
There is a lot of immunity; but in the US 100-150k people are catching the virus per day
That’s exactly the point. Over 80% of blood donors had antibodies: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784013
Blood donors may not be the most representative sample, but this study was in May, before the Delta wave which infected millions and spurred many more to get vaccinated. Whatever point you’re trying to reach, we are already there. After delta the population with no immunity at all has to be tiny…this thing is here to stay
I don’t accept the comparison with abortion; for a few general reasons.
The point wasn’t to compare the two, but to point out that there is an established “right to privacy” that limits what the government is allowed to do. I don’t see how a private business owners decision on which private citizens to keep on the payroll wouldn’t fall under any reasonable definition of a right to privacy
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
In the US over 70% of people have already had at least one dose of the vaccine, and of those who haven’t a large but not known portion have immunity from catching the virus. There is a ton of immunity as is. I could be wrong but I don’t see the situation here changing much. But the supply chain disruptions from even a small portion of workers refusing the vaccine are very real, and this is also a completely unprecedented step. States in the US aren’t allowed to ban abortion because of a “right to privacy”, surely a right to privacy that covers abortion would cover your private medical information.
I also have a big problem with it from a separation of powers/governance issue. It seems highly likely to me that this will get struck down, but not after most companies comply with it which accomplishes the intended goal. Which just seems like hacking the system…don’t approve
I don’t have a very strong opinion though because I don’t know what I’m talking about
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
It’s endemic at this point, it’s never going to go away. If I saw strong evidence that we could actually get to zero covid I might change my mind, but it doesn’t seem like a realistic outcome at all to me, especially considering the fact that it’s been like eight months and they are already talking about booster shots
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
The only compelling argument to me is that someone who is unvaccinated could potentially put people who can’t get vaccinated because they have some kind of problem at risk. From what I’ve seen that population is pretty small, but with a hamfisted mandate like this, if it’s actually enforced, will probably force a lot of them to get vaccinated. I’m not worried about break through cases because the vast majority are mild
Personally I’m really really wary of my employer making my medical decisions for me, and I’m incredibly worried about the government forcing them to make my decision for me. It just feels so invasive. I wish I could put my thoughts together more effectively. I wish I could understand what is driving all of the anger. I guess people are mad that the unvaccinated are making the pandemic continue but it’s only for themselves. If you’re vaccinated the risk is very, very low
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
if ya'll idiots dont care about the people you're killing by not getting vaxed and wearing masks when needed, why should i care that someone is illegally trying to coerce you into doing the right thing, what you should have done all along?
Virtually everyone currently being hospitalized right now is unvaccinated, which is why I don’t really understand the fervor around forcing vaccinations. The unvaccinated are killing nobody but themselves, why take the unprecedented steps currently being taken?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Thanks for laying out your beliefs in depth, it’s helpful
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
They’ll be out of the gene pool in a generation. Whites also have a huge advantage in the dating market so there has to be some truth to the idea that being white confers social status. At the same time you do see the self loathing whites way too often, anti white rhetoric is ubiquitous etc. Its all very complicated, I can’t really make sense of the racial dynamics in the US at all
Created:
Posted in:
If you had a magic wand and could make one policy change in the US what would it be
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I still think this sites existence is super suspicious. There just happened to be a readymade clone of DDO from some guy nobody had ever heard of. Okay…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I don’t personally, which is why I invoked the FBI who have deemed right wing extremism as the greatest threat to the safety of the public, including over Muslim extremism. I didn’t think it would be heavily contested but I forgot the climate I am posting this in
I am HIGHLY skeptical of that for a number of reasons but that’s for another day. That could be true and conservatives could still be being banned far too often. Even if people on the right deserve to be banned more often (I don’t concede this but for arguments sake) they could still be getting banned too much. You are saying basically that conservatives are being banned from social media because they are making hateful and nasty comments but they are too hateful and nasty to realize this. Your “theory on conservatives” is not a theory at all, it presupposes that your opponents claims have no merit
Do you think Donald Trump’s words played a major role in the Capitol attacks?If yes, what should be the proper response?
I don’t actually care about Trump that much. I would agree that he fucked up massively and abused his platform. Ultimately I don’t think he should be banned because he was literally the president. But I do understand people who think differently.
My problem is entirely with the complete prohibition on discussing certain SUBJECTS. People should absolutely be allowed to discuss voter fraud. In 2018 there was a congressional election in North Carolina that had to be redone due to mail in voter fraud. This is what makes me roll my eyes whenever Democrats say there is no voter fraud. Yes there is, and in the last verified instance of it you were the victims! I think what you and people who think the same as you tend to miss is that power always uses unpopular edge cases to roll things out at first. They to be make for banning discussion on election fraud in 2020 because the evidence simply does not show widespread voter fraud. But what if, in a future election, there really IS voter fraud? Do you really want some corporate oligarchs being allowed to decide whether or not that can be discussed? Whether or not a particular instance is “real”? To me, that seems like a giant problem. And I don’t think we should pretend as if “oh it’s just online stuff anyway.” Online and reality have converged. Nobody is handing out pamphlets or whatever any more, real politics happens using the internet.
My perspective as a long time social media lurker is that the solution to bad speech is good speech, not shutting down things that go against elite consensus. As recently as a few months ago, social media companies were banning people for saying that they thought the coronavirus came from a lab. The US intelligence community has now concluded that they will probably never know the origins of the virus for sure, but said that the lab leak hypothesis is completely plausible. I know you refuse to discuss this issue because the CDC disagrees but I am watching the elite consensus on masks for children change in real time. Today an article arguing against masking children in The Atlantic.
But here’s what really grinds my gear about it: they are making the exact same arguments using the exact same data as the anonymous accounts being banned! But you know an author in The Atlantic is never going to be banned. The elites are allowed to stick their necks out, even if they are slower on the draw.
I’ve seen this trend happen again and again INCLUDING WARNING ABOUT THE VIRUS ITSELF. First random people or anonymous accounts start talking about something, then semi respected bloggers pick up the story, and then FINALLY the mainstream media and people who matter start paying attention. In January of 2020 the only people talking about the virus were random people online while the experts were assuring us that there was nothing to worry about. This continued until late February or March of 2020, when it was beyond obvious that this thing was a serious threat. Quite a few of the people warning about coronavirus in early 2020 have since been banned, even though they have an established track record of alerting people of important information.
So no, I don’t support a two tiered system where only the elites are allowed to speak their minds especially since the elite consensus frequently gets things wrong. Let the marketplace of ideas flourish. If someone makes a good argument with robust data it doesn’t matter if they are a neurosurgeon or a janitor.
As far as hate speech goes, that term can mean anything. Whatever rules are being applied clearly don’t apply in the case of anti white “hate speech” which is absolutely ubiquitous. But more importantly, one mans hate speech is another mans free speech. I think the founders got it right when they implemented the first amendment. One of the good things about a democratic society is that everyone, even the people who have no social or economic power, get to speak their minds.
My final point in this wall of text: realize that the elites in this country aren’t really your friend. They largely favor the Democratic Party (right now) but not because they want to help the working class, or stop police brutality, or whatever. Organizations like the New York Times (run by a hereditary dynasty of wealthy elites) or the Washington Post (literally owned by the richest man in the country) exist to take the economic priorities of the elite and translate them into moral arguments to win over the populace. When it comes to censorship, the shoe will absolutely be on the other foot the moment you or people like you start advocating for things that people like Bezos feel like represent a threat to their interests. Why cede free speech on the internet to the oligarchs just because they are currently targeting people you dislike?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
And as far as which side is engaging in it more… are you really suggesting the left is claiming it’s being censored by the right?
No, the claim from conservatives is that they are being unfairly targeted, ie the rules are not being applied equally. If this is true, of course leftists wouldn’t be getting censored even if they were behaving just as badly . I don’t know who is more hateful. I know what my bias says, but I have no empirical evidence and you don’t either.
but we can start with Trump being banned from social media as a result of his role in the attacks on the US Capitol.
Trump is a political liability so I think it’s actually a good thing for my politics…but yeah I do think it’s an extremely weird Overton window if it doesn’t have room for the opinions of someone who won a presidential election
Created:
Posted in:
Theory about conservatives: they are just shitty people who are blinded by tribalism
Saved everyone a read.
You need to establish a definition of “hate speech”, secure agreement that this should be bannable, and then provide empirical evidence that one side is consistently engaged in it more, otherwise your position is not worth of serious consideration
Created: