I get a lot of nonsense 'political' rants and screeds on my Facebook feed, which I now avoid commenting on because of the low quality of discussion (surprise, surprise) it turns into. So instead, I'll share and comment on them here.
Here's a couple of highlights from today: (Edited for language by me)
quote: Obamacare experience in person. So I'm FORCED to pay at the minimum $150 a month for this terrible plan, that only covers primary care physician, who is not my regular doctor because I didn't get to keep my doctor as promised, and prescription drugs with my copay. Anything else that costs less than $6,000 I have to take care of myself. What a ****ing joke man. To all those who passed the affordable healthcare act **** off. If it was just that the insurance companies couldn't turn you down for preexisting conditions, and created an OPTIONAL insurance policy that was through the government for people who qualify I wouldn't have an issue. But to sit here and force people to buy terrible insurance and then threaten said people with fines if they don't sign up is not just unconstitutional and un-American but it's straight up extortion. Go **** yourself congress, way to line the pockets of these insurance companies even more, cause we all know that's the only real reason this was passed you ****ing snakes. This needs to get amended ASAP. I'm just gonna get insurance through my job in March because this plan I was forced to pay for is absolute bull. This isn't universal healthcare, it's a ****ing scam for politicians to get kickbacks from the insurance companies who funded them. I would like to know each companies lobbyists names, and which politicians they're giving money to please.
While I understand he's frustrated by his experience, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess he hasn't done extensive research on what the purpose of the ACA is.
He starts by criticizing the Safe Act by saying it was spurred by emotional fear, and then proceeds to argue against it using an emotional appeal with no facts or rationality breaking down what the Act actually does and why it is not a solution to gun violence. Also, his right is more important than dead children because he fought for it. Let's take a look at what the Act actually says. What right is being taken from him? High-capacity magazines? His right to not report that his gun was stolen? A mental health patient's right to keep his gun after he's made a credible threat of harming others? Are any of those rights more important than preventing people from dying? He then closes by stating that the legislators wouldn't be so quick to pass this law if they had to go through the door first to take a gun from someone who was refusing to give it up. Well, I guess we can strike every law off the book that our legislators aren't willing to personally enforce. That should make for a good criminal justice system.
Also, the Safe Act =/ Obama's Gun Control Plan.
Also, if any of you oppose the right to bear arms, take a look at this, found in the comment sections. That'll show you.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:And I really really really care And I really really really want you And I think I'm kinda scared Cos I don't want to lose you If you really really really care Then maybe you can hang through I hope you understand It's nothing to you My heart's at a low I'm so much to manage I think you should know that I've been damaged
quote: Every time I have faith in mankind again, one of you ****tards come along and ruin all hope!
quote:Fate can be cruel, a minute here, a minute there, and lives can be lost. That is why we should cherish every moment, because fate also gives us moments of impossible grace, ways to connect with others that are almost profound... enough to make us believe that there is someone out there looking out for us. So say what you feel.... because each moment is a gift.
quote:Some people deserve to get punched in the face... with a sledgehammer. ... repetedly.
quote:Baby I'm a nightmare dressed like a daydream...
quote:I'm on the road of least resistance I'd rather give up than give into this So promise me only one thing, would you? Just don't ever make me promises.. No promises, no promises
quote:I care. It freaking terrifies me how much I care.
quote:What's that? You've heard a bunch of bad stories from someone who hates me? That shit must be true!
quote: Anything soft and delicate should have a sharp sort of dangerous edge.....
quote: Thought about it... don't feel like being nice anymore... i will be to others what they show me. A perfect mirror. Some should really be terrified. ...
And to tie it up:
quote: I am so ****ing sick of drama! i wish people who always have drama would just **** off and leave me alone... so stupid!
One day in the life of the resident drama queen amongst my Facebook friends.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This might become my favorite thread.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Gaal -
On your first post on the ACA - I totally agree with the guy. I just got health insurance two months ago and I have what's considered a high deductible ($1,300), but compared to that guy's mine is a dream. Plus my company pays half of it in the form of an HSA contribution. In the modern healthcare era I'm basically living the dream.
But you're right, the ACA was never meant to control costs, it was meant to provide coverage. Steven Brill has expanded upon his TIME Magazine expose with a new book I think called "America's Bitter Pill" where he addresses the ACA's passage, its problems, who got rich off of it, and the next set of actions we should take to solve our larger looming problems. The ACA, in many ways, just made sure insurance companies got more customers and hospitals could get paid for services they previously had to eat the costs on. It's no wonder so many in the industry were on board.
The deductible aspect of these new Obamacare plans is, in my opinion, the worst part of it. Industry folks say it keeps costs down and forces consumers to make better choices. But that's bull. Numbers show that the fastest growing segment of the population that's self-rationing care is the middle class, becuase they can't afford to pay the first few grand of their costs out of pocket, so they're refusing to get treatment at all...exactly the sort of thing the ACA was SUPPOSED to stop from happening.
It's a mess.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Gaal -
On your first post on the ACA - I totally agree with the guy. I just got health insurance two months ago and I have what's considered a high deductible ($1,300), but compared to that guy's mine is a dream. Plus my company pays half of it in the form of an HSA contribution. In the modern healthcare era I'm basically living the dream.
But you're right, the ACA was never meant to control costs, it was meant to provide coverage. Steven Brill has expanded upon his TIME Magazine expose with a new book I think called "America's Bitter Pill" where he addresses the ACA's passage, its problems, who got rich off of it, and the next set of actions we should take to solve our larger looming problems. The ACA, in many ways, just made sure insurance companies got more customers and hospitals could get paid for services they previously had to eat the costs on. It's no wonder so many in the industry were on board.
The deductible aspect of these new Obamacare plans is, in my opinion, the worst part of it. Industry folks say it keeps costs down and forces consumers to make better choices. But that's bull. Numbers show that the fastest growing segment of the population that's self-rationing care is the middle class, becuase they can't afford to pay the first few grand of their costs out of pocket, so they're refusing to get treatment at all...exactly the sort of thing the ACA was SUPPOSED to stop from happening.
It's a mess.
Well, that was basically my point. I said I understood his frustrations, there are definite issues with it as it stands (there's always going to be a rocky start and things are going to be screwy when trying to overhaul something as complex as a healthcare system) but to say it's purpose is to "line the pockets of these insurance companies even more, cause we all know that's the only real reason this was passed you ****ing snakes" and " it's a ****ing scam for politicians to get kickbacks from the insurance companies who funded them" is showing that he hasn't actually made an attempt to understand its purpose before writing a scathing post on it.
This piece does a good job of hitting some of the actual purposes to ACA and provides more reading to learn what it's supposed to do.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Dogbreath, I actually feel bad for people like that. I also have a resident drama queen. But it must be very difficult to be that emotionally unstable and not have the intelligence (<- I struggled to think of a more accurate and less insulting word) to understand that these are issues best dealt with close, empathetic family and friends or a trained therapist.
I realize I just debunked the purpose of my own thread, but since it's MY thread I'm drawing the line between people who might actually need professional help and dummies who don't bother doing their homework before spouting off about politics. Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
The deductibles are much too high, but I'm drawing a blank of how you could get out of a major medical issue without breaking it handily. My insurance company paid a solid 14 grand for my appendectomy nearly five years ago.
HIgh deductible plans are meant for people who are young and healthy who really don't think they need major medical care (but they might, see above).
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Dogbreath, I actually feel bad for people like that. I also have a resident drama queen. But it must be very difficult to be that emotionally unstable and not have the intelligence (<- I struggled to think of a more accurate and less insulting word) to understand that these are issues best dealt with close, empathetic family and friends or a trained therapist.
I realize I just debunked the purpose of my own thread, but since it's MY thread I'm drawing the line between people who might actually need professional help and dummies who don't bother doing their homework before spouting off about politics.
I think both sides would argue that the others have not researched their positions well enough.
The proper response to people like this is to decide that they are idiots, and approach everything they post from a perspective of a amusement, or remove them from your feed. And then decide not to invite them to your next dinner party.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: The deductibles are much too high, but I'm drawing a blank of how you could get out of a major medical issue without breaking it handily. My insurance company paid a solid 14 grand for my appendectomy nearly five years ago.
HIgh deductible plans are meant for people who are young and healthy who really don't think they need major medical care (but they might, see above).
Maybe that's the intention, but the vast majority of people getting Obamacare plans are getting them regardless of their age or beliefs. It protects people from catastrophic loss, sure, but five or six grand is enough to crush most people living on the edge of financial ruin, or even financial stability.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I remember the days when social media was used to socialize....
Damn that was a long time ago.
Seems like these days all anyone does is post links to politically charged articles and "what Harry Potter character are you?" quizzes.
They need to stop.... Except for those Thai "feel good" commercials. For some reason I'm ok with those
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"Thai 'feel good' commercials" ???
Is that a euphemism for porn?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
There's definitely been too many articles posted in my feed. I click half of them, and I really shouldn't.
I'm in a good discussion group for alums of one of my schools, which is pretty good though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If your Facebook feed sucks because it's all dumbs and fossils blasting your feed with imbecilic political garbage and other tripe, either just accept that, or start in following the people who make your feed dumb.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Yeah nobody gets on your feed without your continued consent so if your feed sucks do something about it.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I almost never go to my facebook page anymore but I just knew there would be some good drama on it to copy over here. What do I find? Nothing but cat videos and pictures of snow. Kind of disappointing.
I did realize I could start some serious drama. One of my friends (best friend from high school but haven't seen in 20 years) is now a successful horse trainer. Another friend (former coworker with the brightest natural green eyes in the universe) is a big time horse lover and riding instructor who hates absolutely everything about horse racing. Think I should hook those two up? That could start some drama.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
It's not so much that there's something wrong with the articles-- my friends are decent enough curators. It's just that my clicking them tells facebook that I like these particular people more than others and I want articles and not status updates.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
*nods* I've steadfastly refused to look at any click-bait articles for the past year or so in hopes that they will stop popping up on my wall. No dice so far.
As far as un-following: while I have done this with a number of supremely annoying friends (the ones who post 20+ some ee cards a day, or just share stupid memes constantly), a lot of the dumb articles are coming from people I otherwise care about and want to see status updates/pictures from. I wish you could filter that, like maybe a clickbait filter or a poltical news site filter or something. I do enjoy reading articles that friends share that are interesting and informative, especially if they're science and technology related.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
*has a hundred of those friends who post 90% junk and ignorant politics, feed becomes nigh unreadable*
"Well I can't just unfollow them, sometimes they're posting about stuff I like to hear about!"
*complains about feed*
*useful info buried in sea of really bad memes and that everything that obama did, is doing, or ever will do is a failure*
*eventually burns out on facebook*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
anyone who I have unfollowed I can check up with on events pages or if I am inspired to I can go check their page.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Whats so hard about just scrolling past the junk
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
A college professor was addressing his history class. He began his lecture by saying, “Let’s get one thing straight: God is not real; the only God is Obama and the powerful female clitoris.” One student raised his hand and stood up and said, “Sir, I’m sorry to interrupt, but where I come from we don’t talk bad about God, because he’s our best friend.” The professor then said, “What are you, an idiot? Shut up, idiot. This is college and we hate Christ. Who do you think you are, Christian?” The student responded by picking up his bag, putting on his cowboy hat and punching the teacher in the face. “My name is Sgt. Johnathan Gunderson. And your plan won’t work, Goltar.” Because when the sergeant punched the professor, he punched the mask off of his face, revealing the praying mantis head underneath. “You’ve figured out my evil plan this time, Sgt. Gunderson. But as long as there are aborted fetuses for me to feast upon, I will always be stronger than America!” He then flew away to his lair. Share this status if you want to save America and end abortion.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
If I had stopped following you from earlier junk posts you shared I would have missed out on a gem like that.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: A college professor was addressing his history class. He began his lecture by saying, “Let’s get one thing straight: God is not real; the only God is Obama and the powerful female clitoris.” One student raised his hand and stood up and said, “Sir, I’m sorry to interrupt, but where I come from we don’t talk bad about God, because he’s our best friend.” The professor then said, “What are you, an idiot? Shut up, idiot. This is college and we hate Christ. Who do you think you are, Christian?” The student responded by picking up his bag, putting on his cowboy hat and punching the teacher in the face. “My name is Sgt. Johnathan Gunderson. And your plan won’t work, Goltar.” Because when the sergeant punched the professor, he punched the mask off of his face, revealing the praying mantis head underneath. “You’ve figured out my evil plan this time, Sgt. Gunderson. But as long as there are aborted fetuses for me to feast upon, I will always be stronger than America!” He then flew away to his lair. Share this status if you want to save America and end abortion.
I've seen almost every possible variant of the "example" section of this page, but attributed to different people rather than just Einstein.
One of the Einstein ones was especially egregious, since it had Einstein as a devout Christian who preached the gospel of Christ after humiliating the professor. It was very widely shared.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You missed the part where the college professor dares the marine to prove that God exists, while he performs an abortion.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: "Thai 'feel good' commercials" ???
Is that a euphemism for porn?
hahaha hardly.
It is some sort of initiative that companies in Thailand are doing.
One has a kid that steals some medicine for his sick mother, and the owner of a soup kitchen pays for it and gives the kid a bag of soup.
Years later, the owner of the soup kitchen gets very sick and his hospital bills are sky high. His daughter gets an invoice one morning and it says "Paid in full 20 years ago with medicine and a bag of soup." Turns out the doctor was the same kid the owner of the soup kitchen had helped out.
They are usually a few minutes long, and there is a whole series of them. They usually have a tagline like "Be kind to each other" or something like that. You can find them on youtube, and they are all subtitled.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I think Jon Stewart missed a beat on this one. He tried to focus on the double standard aspect of Huckabee's stance instead of the absurdity of it. When Huckabee tried to use the good ol' boys in the pickup coming to fix your car example I would've agreed with him because that's an issue they're likely more knowledgeable about than an MBA student. The issue comes when those good ol' boys want to talk about science or economic policy and expect their opinions to hold the same weight as scientists or economic experts.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
IME, it's not outside the realm of possibility for one of those good ol' boys to be a scientist or economist. In the beginning of this month I attended a week long online certification course run by a man who could only be described as redneck - he goes fishing, hunting, and shooting and lives out in a little house in the woods with his pickup truck. He also runs his own cyber security firm and is extremely well educated and intelligent.
Myself growing up firmly part of "Bubba Ville" until I was in high school, I can sympathize with Huckabee's POV here. Both in the condescending way city folks sometimes treat people from the country whose fashion, activities, and lifestyle are different than theirs, and also seeing a sort of reversal when I joined the military: a lot of people who grew up their whole lives in the city are laughably incompetent at a lot of basic tasks.
Jon's "I want AAA" comment sort of reveals an assumption on his part that a lot of city people have - that there's always someone else out there to fix things, and that assumption comes from a place of economic privilege.
Growing up if one of the cars broke down, my dad and I would spend all weekend working on it until it started running again. We built 2 rooms in our house, did all the electrical and plumbing, landscaped the yard, and laid a new cement walkway. And in the process he taught me a lot of basic life skills - how to fix a car, how electricity works, construction, landscaping, cooking, cleaning, laundry, camping, hunting, fishing, etc. But we also lived that way out of necessity. We couldn't afford to call a plumber, we couldn't afford to take the car to a mechanic, we couldn't afford to hire contractors or landscapers, we couldn't afford to hire an electrician, we couldn't afford to buy meat at market prices so we hunted and kept the meat in our deep freezer all year, and so on.
So there definitely is a class divide there as well, and it can be immensely frustrating to watch rich people laugh at the way poor people live - a very "let them eat cake" moment.
OTOH, I haven't read Huckabee's book, but I'm fairly sure (just from that interview) he tries to put a moral and political spin on the issue, which isn't really fitting. But he is right that there is a big difference between the two cultures, and a lot of ignorance on both sides.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: IME, it's not outside the realm of possibility for one of those good ol' boys to be a scientist or economist. In the beginning of this month I attended a week long online certification course run by a man who could only be described as redneck - he goes fishing, hunting, and shooting and lives out in a little house in the woods with his pickup truck. He also runs his own cyber security firm and is extremely well educated and intelligent.
Key words being 'extremely well educated'. But Huckabee's comments about Harvard faculty makes it seem like he looks down on being well educated.
I think people in 'Bubbleville' do respect people that are professionals at jobs that they have no skills in - electricians, plumbers, etc. - and wouldn't tell them how to do their jobs. It's when the people in Bubbaville start denying facts like global warming and look down on scientific research like it's just liberal tricks that the people on the coast might start coming off as condescending when trying to explain that they have no idea what they're talking about.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yeah, what I'm saying is there are probably more environmental scientists from/in "bubbaville" than you think. I definitely agree that Huckabee's disdain for education is pretty stupid.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Oh, and this one is for you Gaal out of respect for your recently deceased thread (RIP):
Seen a lot of arguments about vaccinations going on Facebook. Most of the anti-vaxxers saying things like "why should I pump my child full of *chemicals* when the vaccines don't even work anyway?" This article is the first time I realized how wide spread the movement had become, and how much damage it's caused. At this point I'm starting to think mandatory vaccination laws are in order, since the alternative is so potentially devastating.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I've been exposed to more anti-vaccine articles/POVs than any person should ever have to suffer through. I'm starting to realize that a lot of it isn't caused by a lack of intelligence or rational thinking or misinformation, it's caused by a contrarian disposition and a incurable case of confirmation bias. Their reasons for being anti-vaccine will evolve endlessly as each of their previous reasons are debunked because it's in their nature to distrust the establishment and, as far as I can tell, it's impossible to change their minds.
When the vaccine-autism link was debunked, it became vaccines don't work because fully-vaccinated kids still got measles. When their high degree of reliability of preventing measles was shown through data, it became that they might prevent the disease but the side effects of some vaccines can have the same adverse effects as the disease itself. When the chances of having those adverse effects from the vaccine was shown to be significantly less than from the disease...etc.
There's an endless amount of arguments one can use against vaccines if you are determined to discredit their effectiveness in modern medicine. If I weren't personally invested in this issue for the health of my nephew, I would have thrown in the towel a long time ago.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Also, the vaccine-autism link will never fully die because nothing will ever refute the anecdotal evidence of parents who vaccinated their healthy child who, the very next day (hour? minute?), became autistic. That's the trump card that will always be used over any amount of scientific data that anyways was probably paid for by big pharm or will just change in ten years like every medication does when big science says it's good for you and then pulls it off the market when it starts causing cancer.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I vaccinate my best healthiest child's with obamacare vaccine, then one year later they are diagnose with SOCIALISM. coincident??? I think not. End Kenya rule of our children's. Ron Paul 2015
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
What were the symptoms? Did he start sharing his toys with less fortunate children in his class?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Of course not. Socialists don't share their own toys; they demand that everyone who has toys share with them. Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Of course not. Socialists don't share their own toys; they demand that everyone who has toys share with them.
You are both incorrect. The toys don't belong to the child, they belong to the community.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's only if the Socialists are correct, which of course they are not.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:“Pornography is the theory,” renowned feminist Robin Morgan once wrote, “rape is the practice.”
Posted and argued for by a woman I know who quite earnestly believes that porn turns innocent, pure men into rapists/child molesters.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So, you know how pretty much all TERFs lament about how feminism has lost its way and is totally wrong now because it dared to evolve away from second wave transphobia? That's always a super awesome thing to remember.
These anti-porn people are no different. Sex positive feminism won, essentially, and feminism moved on from the faction of anti-porn feminists that tried to claim that they are 'protecting' women by regulating their sexual agency just as harshly as sternly patriarchal conservatives concerned about their ~purity~ would do. Let's protect women by telling them that their desire to perform in any sort of sexual work is wrong, immoral, and invalid. Feminism is best served by telling women what they can't do, right?
So they sit in their increasingly isolated (USUALLY ALSO TRANS-EXCLUSIONARY WHAT A SURPRISE RIGHT) enclaves and write stuff like this stunningly useless gender-deterministic pseudopsych, all while trying to ignore that most of it is written at the behest of large, conservative, patriarchal, supremely anti-feminist organizations, and with increasing frequency they don't even bother to let a woman write it at all.
Yes, I can't wait for a large church run by old white men that tries to keep people from being allowed to masturbate ever or have sex outside marriage and which believes that women are essentially property who are given away to the dominion of another man (and really seriously try to sort of maybe keep from having to admit so openly that yes this is exactly what the doctrine says sorry) and that all gay sex or trans* state is totally wrong and bad is going to tell us about the moral scourge of porn.
tell me more about who's really looking out for women, mr jonathan von whatever of LifeSiteNews
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It is true that porn is damaging in some contexts. (I don't even need to qualify what kind of porn, because in the right circumstances, any kind can be bad for some people.)
It's also true that some porn is just bad, no matter who is involved.
So yeah. For some people, it's bad. For some porn, it's bad.
But when/why/how? That's the interesting and important part.
The guy who wrote that article seems to have no concern with how porn affects different people in different ways, and examining what those differences are and why they might exist. I'm not sure if his expert witness is concerned with such details, but she doesn't appear to be, based on how her opinions were framed.
This is the same kind of overwrought attitude that brings us the War On Drugs and highly overpopulated prisons.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, there's a critical difference — you're never going to see a War on Porn really seriously take flight if there's no way for private corporate interests to make super mega bank off of it like some do today off the war on drugs with their privatized for-profit prisons
so our porn is safe
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
god that sounds horrifically cynical and conspiratorial
but i have no reason to really doubt it's essentially the truth of the matter
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Oh, indeed. But some of the same dynamics are in play, like the problem of rational warnings and cautions getting lost in the wind of YOU'LL TURN INTO A RAPIST.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
what, though, are the rational warnings and cautions? most have turned out to be wildly speculative pop psych pushed mostly on the power of agenda.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Don't assume it represents good sex.
It can and usually does objectify participants and misrepresent their preferences.
It usually fails to represent the range of human sexuality accurately but it's also wrong to assume that what you see is wrong for everyone. Basically, people are individuals, most of whom don't want to be sex toys, and you won't learn that from (most) porn.
You can develop compulsive habits which become part of destructive patterns of behavior. If this happens you need to seek some help.
Participants may be victims of trafficking or other forms of exploitation, and ethical consumption takes more effort than passive consumption.
Taking the wrong lessons from porn or developing worrisome habits may be more likely if there is a lot of exposure at young ages; this is best avoided.
etc.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I see photos being shared from garbage Conservative pages all the time but this is an especially egregious misrepresentation of reality.
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Don't assume it represents good sex.
It can and usually does objectify participants and misrepresent their preferences.
It usually fails to represent the range of human sexuality accurately but it's also wrong to assume that what you see is wrong for everyone. Basically, people are individuals, most of whom don't want to be sex toys, and you won't learn that from (most) porn.
You can develop compulsive habits which become part of destructive patterns of behavior. If this happens you need to seek some help.
Participants may be victims of trafficking or other forms of exploitation, and ethical consumption takes more effort than passive consumption.
Taking the wrong lessons from porn or developing worrisome habits may be more likely if there is a lot of exposure at young ages; this is best avoided.
etc.
The fact that the women in your life don't react to you like the women in porn react to men in porn doesn't mean that you're missing out on something that most other men have making you part of an oppressed minority.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Do you feel that that's an issue that is caused/exacerbated by pornography or that a (surprisingly small and on it's way out) percentage of porn presents situations like that due existing in a culture that encourages it?
Not that I'm particularly interested in defending porn, but I would say I've seen far, far more of that sort of entitlement complex in sitcoms and movies (where the dorky, ordinary guy always wins the heart of the supermodel girl by just being *nice*, thus justifying any troublesome or creepy possessiveness or manipulation on his part) than in porn. And also that (hopefully most) men realize the "naughty secretary" or whatever character in porn is laughably, obviously fake, whereas quite a few of them think that relationships ought to play out like they do in the movies. (As do a lot of women, actually) But I'm somewhat more inclined to view all of this as more of a symptom than a cause.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
The good news is almost everyone bashed it in the comments. The bad news is they were really terrible pro-vaccine defenses and mostly consisted of hurling personal insults without much convincing done.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:You want to spice up your marriage? You want to save your relationship from being stagnant, or save the passion from slipping away in the day in and day out expectations of you and your husband? Don’t ask Christian Grey for help. Don’t watch Christian Grey do whatever he would like to Anastasia Steele and expect it to heal that deep hurt and need for intimacy in your own heart.
Only Jesus can do that. Only Jesus can speak to the places in our hearts that need to feel alive and loved again.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I need to have Jesus tie me to a nightstand and make my inner goddess do the merengue with some salsa moves.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I never realized how many chiropractors are on my feed until the vaccine debate sparked back up:
quote: Measles......looking at the wrong group.
So many are missing the point. What is more important than who got infected with measles at Disney?
How about who didn't? Again we are caught looking the wrong way. Everyone is worked up over how many people developed the measles from the outbreak at Disney. I want to know why all the people also exposed, in the same families, on the same rides, in the same long lines, eating the same junk foods, walking around all day under the same hot sun, did not get it. What made the difference?
If we really wanted to understand all this I would imagine that they would be looking more into who escaped the exposure than who did not. I would want to know how many were exposed, how many of them were vaccinated and with how many shots, how many who were exposed were not fully or even partially vaccinated. I would want to take a blood test from them all and see if anti-bodies really made a difference. I would want to see if the anti-bodies detected were to the wild strain or one of the vaccine induced strains. I would want to know if there were other previously not considered metrics found for immunity to measles.
I would want to compare the health status of the exposed who caught the measles and the exposed who did not. I would look for other correlations, look at prior health history, nutritional status, diet and hydration.
All the hype with so little action to critically think and learn from what happened is alarming. There was a very big opportunity there to truly learn about this disease, it's transmission, virulence, immune susceptibility, effectiveness of natural and vaccine immunity, but it was lost.
Which ever side you are on, rather than get scared and push for more mandates I suggest you get focused and push for more research and investigating.
In the meantime, use this opportunity lost as a chance to sharpen your critical thinking and deepen your perspective on the subject. Again, which ever side you are on, do your homework.
Dr. Don
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
we're not taking this opportunity to dramatically question current vaccine theory to potentially fit my preconceived notions by saying that we didn't do something that it was too late to do once we knew an outbreak was happening
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I'm not sure I'm parsing that sentence correctly. You're saying it was too late to examine the immune people once we realized that there was an outbreak?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Also: can you imagine rounding up all the uninfected attendees at Disneyland -- including children -- and subjecting them to surveys and blood draws?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah the height of weirdness in it is that anti-vax types are super duper ultra anti Big Med meddling in their bizness and yet what this person is recommending requires basically collecting all the humans in didneyworld during a measles outbreak and telling them to submit to a blood draw
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
WE MUST REFLECT ON THAT THIS IS A MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO DO THINGS WHICH WE WOULD GET CRUCIFIED FOR TRYING TO DO SO IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Idk...seems like the author is calling for people to ask (by his standards) better questions...i e focus on understanding before acting. Seems like he isn't calling for any actual action.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No. The author is engaging in empty platitudes.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
So against my better judgement, I opened up a dialogue in the comments section. We're now at the point where 'most children who caught measles were vaccinated'. I'm trying to do a breakdown of the numbers showing how much more likely the unvaccinated were to catch measles, but I'm having trouble finding specific numbers and sources in this outbreak specifically, all the articles are saying is most of the cases were unvaccinated. Anyone know a good article breaking the numbers down to show the effectiveness of the measles vaccine?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: Actually it was more like 40% were vaccinated, and the unvaccinated, about 7 infants who couldn't have vaccines yet and the rest adults. The right question is why are people who are vaccinated still getting the dx even with such a high effectiveness? Is it the 3% of the "not effective" plan to meet at Disney? Or do we have to start asking better questions as Dr Don points out Like why not research better, less toxic ways to protect us? Yes, would the vaccines cost more, maybe, but they would be more safe and people wouldn't second guess them. But we all somewhat understand that big pharma can't profit as much using natural, safer ingredients for vaccines instead of the known toxins currently being used.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i want to bite their heads off. i will bite their heads off with my organic all-natural teeth
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Samp, you're better at this than me. Can you help with a rebuttal to that explaining the numbers and the other garbage there?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i will ... see what i can do. what's the full context of that statement?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
After him saying essentially what Stone_Wolf_ did:
Me: And the right answer to Dr. Don's right question is the people who escaped exposure did so because most children are vaccinated and the vaccine has been proven to prevent measles at a 97% effectiveness. The right question is actually why were so many children unvaccinated
Him: Most of the people at Disney who were effected were vaccinated
Him before I can finish putting together the numbers showing this to be false: Actually it was more like 40% were vaccinated, and the unvaccinated, about 7 infants who couldn't have vaccines yet and the rest adults. The right question is why are people who are vaccinated still getting the dx even with such a high effectiveness? Is it the 3% of the "not effective" plan to meet at Disney? Or do we have to start asking better questions as Dr Don points out Like why not research better, less toxic ways to protect us? Yes, would the vaccines cost more, maybe, but they would be more safe and people wouldn't second guess them. But we all somewhat understand that big pharma can't profit as much using natural, safer ingredients for vaccines instead of the known toxins currently being used.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The right question is why are people who are vaccinated still getting the dx even with such a high effectiveness?
- what's a pretty good average number of people at disneyland
- what percentage of those people at disneyland did not catch a disease which has been remarked for having about the most incredible infectivity known
- how much does this percentage of vaccinated people who caught it match the general effectiveness rate of the vaccine?
- side question: what does this suggest for what would have happened in disneyland that day if nobody was vaccinated
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Thanks. I'm trying to write a post answering all those questions and tying them to an answer to your side question, but do you know what an estimate for the percentage of people at Disneyland who are vaccinated? I can't find that.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
Note that for the following argument, the exact number of attendees is actually irrelevant, but since someone asked...
The Disneyland exposures were from December 17-20.
Disneyland doesn't report attendance numbers afaict, but average daily attendance seems to be around 45,000. However, googling indicates early December is the slowest time of year (around 10,000-15,000 per day) while on the flip side the 2-week school holiday in late December is busier than average. Assuming the low end for the 17, 18, and 19, and above average for the 20 (both a weekend and the beginning of the holiday): 10 + 10 + 10 + 60 = ~90,000 people.
Then you have to take into account Disney's California Adventure, the sister park on the same site that also was a source of exposure. It has half the attendance of Disneyland, so say another 45,000 people. However, some of these attendees both between parks and within parks will overlap (mostly people with multiday tickets). Since it's all guesswork here, let's split the difference and say a grand total of 110,000 people were exposed at Disney parks from the 17-20 of December.
For measles vaccine effectiveness, the 97% number is for those who have had both shots; 93% is the number for those who have received only one. Shot #2 is usually administered around age 4-6, so most pre-school-age children would be included in that 93% number (unless the lowered effectiveness is a long-term issue, which it could be. I couldn't find info.). The inactivated measles vaccine produced in the mid-60's (1963-1967) was a dud and produced no long-term immunity; adults in their late 40's to early 50's should be re-vaccinated, but likely most have not been.
95% is the overall effectiveness number often used for measles vaccine on a group (not individual) level, presumably as a combination of the above factors.
2.5% of California kindergarteners have a personal-belief exemption from vaccination. Due to a lack of other data, I'll be generous and apply that to the entire population (for obvious reasons the rate is way high in children in the past decade and far lower for everyone else, but there's also other less common reasons people may not be vaccinated - poor access to healthcare, etc. - so the overall number should capture that and more).
So with all that in mind: * 5% of people are vaccinated but not immune (5,500 out of 110,000 Disneyland attendees). * 2.5% of people are not vaccinated (2,750 out of 110,000 Disneyland attendees). * 92.5% of people are immune (101,750 out of 110,000 Disneyland attendees).
Edit: To add some solid numbers to the below percentages (for scale), I'll assume an infection rate of 50 people for the un-immunized group. If vaccination works one would expect (approximately): * 66% of the infected will be vaccinated (100 Disney attendees) * 33% of the infected will be unvaccinated (50 Disney attendees)
The above two numbers look "bad" for vaccines if you're stupid, but remember in terms of overall numbers this is 5% of the vaccinated at risk and 100% of the unvaccinated at risk. If vaccination doesn't work, one would expect (approximately): * 97.5% of the infected will be vaccinated (1,950 Disney attendees) * 2.5% of the infected will be unvaccinated (50 Disney attendees)
quote:Among the 110 California patients, 49 (45%) were unvaccinated; five (5%) had 1 dose of measles-containing vaccine, seven (6%) had 2 doses, one (1%) had 3 doses, 47 (43%) had unknown or undocumented vaccination status, and one (1%) had immunoglobulin G seropositivity documented, which indicates prior vaccination or measles infection at an undetermined time.
The vast majority of "unknowns" are probably adults who were immunized as children but can't specifically remember or prove it (who could?). To again be rather generous toward the anti-vaccination side, let's assume 100% of the unknowns were immunized. The percentages then break down to:
* 54.5% of the infected were vaccinated (60 out of 110) * 44.5% (49 out of 110; 12 too young for vaccination)
Very close to what we'd expect if vaccination works - in fact, "better" because less than 66% of the vaccinated were infected (this becomes unsurprising when you consider the unvaccinated are more likely to create secondary infections in unvaccinated family/community members).
Everywhere I had to make an assumption, I did it in favor of the anti-vaccination side, and still: The data from the Disneyland epidemic without question corroborates the idea that vaccines are effective.
[ February 20, 2015, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: tertiaryadjunct ]
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Perfect. Thank you!
Now I have to figure out how to chop all of that data up to fit into a status comment without losing anything.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's brill. that's basically all the long-walk homework to drive home the point.
The point that may yet pierce their lambertian impliability.
...
well a guy can dream anyway
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That's brill. that's basically all the long-walk homework to drive home the point.
The point that may yet pierce their lambertian impliability.
...
well a guy can dream anyway
Well, let's test it out. Tertiaryadjunct can post it on some naturalnews article claiming the Disneyland outbreak is proof that the measles vaccine doesn't work and see what kind of responses he gets. My bet is he gets accused of being a sheep, shill, and/or that he lacks critical thinking skills.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
So after using all of tertiaryadjunct's numbers (thanks again) this is what I get from Dr Don:
quote: It is nicely laid out guess work at the end of the day....none of it has been proven, just assumption and correlation. You really want to discuss it, let's do it one topic at a time....what is immunity that you speak of?
Nicely laid out guesswork...I'm going to throw in the towel because I think all data is going to be considered guesswork, unless it supports his worldview, then I'm sure he'll want that data to be credible.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Anyone who panics so badly when confronted by numbers that he backs up so far as "what is immunity that you speak of" needs to be slapped with a fish.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
The only guesswork involved is the exact percentage of people who are unvaccinated. All the rest of that was hard data. Unless he's prepared to claim that 45% of the population is unvaccinated, it is obvious as all hell that vaccination is effective.
People like this are going to do whatever they can to support their preesting prejudices, including ignoring the data. I'd call the argument a waste of time, but at least there's a chance some fence-sitting bystanders will use their brains.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I officially bowed out of that discussion. I want to share with you his final thoughts before I did. The data he is referring to is the numbers provided by ta:
quote: Yes, this is not data. With vaccines It is all guess work.
Vaccines have never been shown to produce immunity, only an immune response in antibodies. That is hard data.
Antibodies have not been associated with preventing disease or immunity, that is hard data.
Vaccines have never been shown to prevent transmission.
Vaccines have never been tested with exposure for prevention.
Vaccines have never been tested with a inert placebo.
Never been studied against a neutral control or an unvaxed population.
Never been tested for long term safety.
And you want to play with numbers and make some point? None of the stats what you are trying to use in your equations are supported by facts, JUST SPECULATION. Not good science or critical thinking.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I've been in similar situations..obviously not with this individual...and not this topic...but I've been an arguments before about -what- that data -means-. I was going to try and ask questions about -how to interpret data- & vetteing and obtaining data in the What Do You Think You Kno thread. But I guess I'm a little foggy on the concept...having trouble articulating an intelligent question here.
I guess the question I'm fumbling twords is: is there ANY way that the data could honestly be interpreted as this "doc" is saying...or is it as it appears...that if an angel of God with m agic wings spread wide, flaming sword in hand, literally flying down from the heavens, proclaiming in an unearthly voice "God sent me to tell you that vaccines save lives & all should get them."...that his response would be "that's just speculation!"
I e this guy is unconvincable. No matter the data or its source.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
did you at least say something like 'i feel that further discussion is not going to be productive because you seem committed, intentionally or otherwise, to reduce all actual numbers and data as 'guesswork' and 'speculation' when they do not fit what you already intend to believe, and there's no effective way to address this.'
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Perhaps a good question for him is "What -would- convince you?"
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I'll just quote the ending of the discussion. I lost my cool a little bit, but I did my best. This is after pointing out that the numbers used weren't guesswork but actually were hard data:
Me:
quote: If that's all you took from that and you're so scared of being confronted with the numbers that you want to back up so far as to define simple medical terms, then no I'm not interested in discussing it further with you. People like you generally have an extreme confirmation bias and ignore evidence, data, and facts. Unless you can find a way to bend it to your preexisting views, then I'm sure you'll want those facts to be credible.
When looked at objectively, there aren't two sides to this issue, anymore then there is to whether we are causing climate change. The science is clear, the vaccine is both safe and effective.
Him:
quote: That is not hard data. That is speculation. You are complaining that I wont look at the data when it is you who refuses then says if you don't agree with my speculations I wont play anymore. Slow the roll and take it one concept at a time and we can look at the data, bundle it up or generalize and you are back in the dogma.
Me:
quote: I'm refusing to look at the data?? Well Don, can you point to where on this page you used anything resembling data drawn from reality?
And see, this is the sort of thing I'm talking about. You don't like what the numbers I laid out for you say (numbers drawn from the CDC of the number of infected and their vaccination status) since they contradict the misinformation you are spreading so you write it off as speculation.
Him:
quote: Yes, this is not data. With vaccines It is all guess work.
Vaccines have never been shown to produce immunity, only an immune response in antibodies. That is hard data.
Antibodies have not been associated with preventing disease or immunity, that is hard data.
Vaccines have never been shown to prevent transmission.
Vaccines have never been tested with exposure for prevention.
Vaccines have never been tested with a inert placebo.
Never been studied against a neutral control or an unvaxed population.
Never been tested for long term safety.
And you want to play with numbers and make some point? None of the stats what you are trying to use in your equations are supported by facts, JUST SPECULATION. Not good science or critical thinking.
Me:
quote: Yeah, at least now I see why you wanted me to define immunity to you. Because apparently you aren't familiar with simple terms. Data is variables collected and analyzed to create information suitable for making decisions. Data is measured, collected, and analyzed, where it can be visualized using graphs or images. What you are saying are hard data are actually the conclusions that are supposed to be drawn from data. Data that you did not provide so that we can even begin to evaluate how you drew those conclusions. And then you followed up with claims that certain tests have never run that are so absurd that I don't even know where to begin. So I'm going to leave this discussion as I can see I have a windmill on my hands and I pray that anyone on the fence reading this will recognize the harmful misinformation you are spreading.
Him:
quote: No sir, I have just studied it for a long time, read the books, scoured the papers, been to the seminars and conferences, there is a big one coming up in Nov in SF if you are interested, and can talk from concepts. See, I have read the research, debates and so forth. I can post that because I have already been through the research on it, I ask questions knowing the answers and what you will find. I am just further along in this game than you are, and people reading this should know that. This is what happens when you don't go slow, take one topic at a time, and look at the real data.
If it is important to you you will find it and do the same. I wish you the best at it, there is a lot there. Newbies to the discussion always need to see the papers, because they haven't seen them yet, and that is the problem. Start with a book on the subject, my favorite thus far is Dissolving Illusions. Harm will be decided in time, and yes, windmills are what we are talking about, more than you know.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Feel free to critique my arguments so I can improve on them the next time this comes up, though I'm only getting into this ever again if it's with someone on the fence. I'm finished with discussing it with these types of people.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i want you to get them into the raw milk movement using some woo claim that raw milk helps you be immune to vaccine virus shedding. So that they start drinking unpasteurized milk. And literally die.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
Next time perhaps you can step through it one piece at a time, so that you can get their agreement on each specific step (it's easy to vaguely hand-wave away a bunch of data, but trying to do that to just a single clear point makes it a lot more obvious and easier to refute).
TL/DR Example:
You:
quote: So, you think that the fact that vaccinated people got infected at Disneyland proves vaccines don't work?
Him:
quote: On the face of it that's so obvious I pity your pathetic little mind.
You:
quote: Ok, lets make and test a couple hypotheses with this outbreak. In order to do that we need to know how many vaccinated vs unvaccinated people there are milling around California. I have some data here saying with this recent anti-vaccination surge, 2.5% of California kindergarteners are unvaccinated. Since that's the current high-water mark, do you think that's safe to apply to the population as a whole, or do you think more than 2.5% of Californians are unvaccinated?
Him:
quote: You underestimate the intelligence of Californians. Both the religious right AND lefty hippies agree on this, it's so obviously right. I'd say 5% of people are unvaccinated geniuses, not 2.5%.
You:
quote: Let's use that, then. We'll make one hypothesis that vaccines work, and another that they don't.
Hypothesis #1: Vaccines work the way vaccinators claim. Claims: Getting 1 shot gives you 93% chance at immunity, getting the recommended 2 gives you a 97% chance [links]. Most people who are vaccinated, but not everyone, get both shots. For this hypothesis, let's take 95% as a generally accepted average for the vaccinated population. Agreed?
Him:
quote: No. As soon as the first shot is administered, children instantly develop autistic scoliosis. Nobody ever gets the second shot.
You:
quote: Ok.
Hypothesis #1: Vaccines work the way vaccinators claim. Claims: Vaccines give you a 93% chance at immunity. Fact: 95% of people are vaccinated, 5% unvaccinated (we agreed on this). Math: 5% of people are not immune because they're unvaccinated, and 6.6% are not immune because the vaccine didn't take.
Hypothesized result: The percentages of vaccinated and unvaccinated that are not immune are roughly equal. In a large group of exposed people, we'd expect to see roughly equal numbers of infections of vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
Does that seem right? (remember this is a hypothesis where we are testing the 93% claim)
Him:
quote: What are you getting at? Maybe I'm wrong and 10% of people are unvaccinated. California is full of illegal immigrants, you know.
You:
quote: Ok, let's assume that, then. 10% to 6.3%. In a large group of exposed people, we'd expect to see 60% of the infections in the unvaccinated, and 40% in the vaccinated. Not terribly dissimilar, and definitely the same order of magnitude.
Him:
quote: Get on with it.
You:
quote: Hypothesis #2: Vaccines don't work. Immunity doesn't exist because thetans. Claims: Vaccines are useless. Fact: 90% of people are vaccinated, 10% unvaccinated (we settled on this). Math: 10% of people are not immune because they're unvaccinated, and 90% are not immune because the vaccine is useless.
Hypothesized result: The percentages of vaccinated and unvaccinated that are not immune are wildly different. In a large group of exposed people, we'd expect to see 10% of the infections hit the unvaccinated, and 90% to hit the vaccinated. That's 9x more infections in the vaccinated population, nearly an order of magnitude difference.
Does that seem right?
Him:
quote: Well, vaccines don't work, so obviously.
You:
quote: Well, let's test these hypotheses on the actual data. [link]
45% unvaccinated 12% vaccinated 43% unknown
Where should we put the unknowns? We can assume they're vaccinated, unvaccinated, or a mix of both based on our agreed-on 10% / 90% split (it is pretty likely they break down the same as the rest of the population). To make it the absolute best in your favor, I'm willing to assume they were all vaccinated.
Him:
quote: Clearly the data is broken. We can't use it.
You:
quote: But we can assume they're all vaccinated, which works best in your favor. If they're anything less than 100% vaccinated, it gets even worse for hypothesis #2.
Him:
quote: *Probably runs away or redirects at this point*
You:
quote: So, stacking the deck in your favor:
45% unvaccinated 55% vaccinated
Does this data better fit hypothesis #1 or hypothesis #2? Given that it's a pretty even split and nowhere near an order of magnitude difference, the data clearly supports hypothesis #1. If vaccination didn't work and 49 unvaccinated people caught the disease, then surely around 450 vaccinated people would have caught it too, right? Since there are way more of them? Why didn't that happen?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i recently had something like a seven day back and forth on vaccine stuff with a 40 year old dance instructor i knew back in boulder who is a very sweet and kind lady but was just absolutely trapped in the whole 'but can you say for suuuure? are we asking the right questions?' netherworld and i was an absolute saint and did it point by point and mainly through an elenctic and kind dialogue with her. such citations! forever!
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I tried to stay out of it. I really did. And then everyone started celebrating when he posted a chart showing declining mortality rates before the vaccine was introduced as proof that vaccines are not responsible for the incidences of diseases declining. Because, you know, not getting a disease and not dying from it are the same thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm actually really confused by the "vaccines have never been compared with an inert placebo" claim, because that's provably false.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I'm going to go self-medicate by reading Methods of Rationality right now to balance out the experience I just went through reading these comments.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Saw this earlier and thought of your situation, Gaal. I'm not sure if it's a fight you'll ever win.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm reminded strongly of debates I sometimes listen to between scientists and creationists*. One of the more compelling, in a 'couldn't look away' sort of thing, was one creationist who also an actual, legitimate astronomer as far as I recall. One of the key points of his defense of creationism ('intelligent design') was that we couldn't really be sure that things like physics, chemistry, biology, very fundamental parts of reality, behaved in the ways we have observed them now back 'when the universe was created' which I can't remember now if in this guy's case was six thousand hears ago or a few hundred.
It's a bit perverse and, frankly, profoundly dishonest (even when it's not intentional deceit) the way opponents of science and rationalism will take one of the bedrock principles that has let science and inquiry make so many discoveries about the world and use it to argue against it: that things should only, in a sense, be considered disproven and never *ultimately* proven. It's twisted and dishonest because of course if that qualifier of science were used for the religious thinking that it was being twisted to defend ('we can't really *know* laws of nature acted the same way in the past!'), it would tear it to ribbons. The level of rigor shifts immediately once it is turned to criticize religious thinking, as it has to for the argument to endure.
It's the same way with the sort of trouble you've been having, Gaal. If the kind of unreasoning, stubborn skepticism such as 'well really what is immunity, anyway?' were applied to an anti-vax attitude, well. There would be a seriously damaged argument for vaccination but the other side would be a smoldering ruin.
It's not a guarantee of course, and the truth is you're unlikely to succeed but I think the only things that stand a chance are an insistence on accepting standards and terms up front to blunt efforts to change the subject and a steadfast refusal to accept the sort of shifting standards 'Dr Don' insists upon. If he will seriously say 'what is immunity, anyway?' then what *possible* cause does he have to object to vaccination?
Anyway, you're fighting the good fight. Unfortunately don't expect to win it publicly! But it's not impossible that you've planted some seeds.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I've surprisingly made a lot of headway with my chiropractor brother-in-law, which is the reason I got into all of this in the first place. My nephew will be getting his first dose of the MMR vaccine on his 2nd birthday coming up. He agrees that the vaccine might work, he just still think that there are natural ways to prevent these diseases, we'll just never find out about them because big pharm can't profit off of them. But he's definitely changed his tone somewhat since we first started discussing these issues.
Also this is how my discussion with Dr Don ended:
Him:
quote: they were on their way out, measles is misdiagnosed often, over 90% at times, and a funny thing happens to reporting after a vaccine is introduced, we saw it with polio too
Me:
quote: Ok I'll point you in the right direction. You posted a chart showing the number of people dying from measles was going down before the vaccine. Then made a claim that the number of people getting it was on the way down. Apples and oranges. Of course mortality was declining because medical technology improved even though the same number of people were getting it. Not dying from a disease is not as good as not getting it in the first place.
I really had to resist saying "So were you aware that the claim you were making based off the graph was incorrect before I pointed it out to you and were purposefully dishonest or did it take someone much farther behind in the game than you are to point it out to you?"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ask questions like that. Courtesy isn't the same thing as not offending someone, and while it might not work with Dr Don it's implrtant to remember it's likely nothing would, really. Not having to field direct, candid challenges is one of the ways he keeps room to argue.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
True. I probably would have but I really didn't want to continue the conversation. He is going to continue his campaign to convince parents to forgo vaccinations regardless of anything I say and anyone else listening in at least now knows not to take everything he says at face value. I didn't have much more of a battle to win and it was incredibly frustrating.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nah man, I get it, and I would have had much less patience and very likely been less effective than you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm not sure how you managed to learn about epidemiology when we don't really know what immunity is anyway.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
For the past 2 years or so literally everyone on Facebook has been posting articles about introverts, and how misunderstood they are and how you need to understand them.
Now the new trend is Outgoing Introverts*, which is a whole new level of special snowflake. When will the madness end?
*Outgoing Introverts are defined by things like being grumpy after a long day of work, not always responding to phone calls, hating first dates, and other behavior that you might mistakenly confuse with being a normal goddamn human being but is instead evidence of how deep and unique and perceptive and layered they are.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
IDK...I've classified myself as an extroverted introvert most of my life. I can't speak to what others qualify that as I simply mean that I enjoy the company of others but find it draining and like to recharge my batteries in quiet in solitude.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
extroverts and introverts are quickly becoming all shades of Outgoing Introverts because the whole dichotomy is turning out to be only just a vaguely valid one more related to degrees of social anxiety or lack of thereof
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If someone tells me that they are an introvert and attempts to give me a list of special instructions for their care and feeding, I will advise them to learn how to deal with their social dysfunction.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I haven't seen those kinds of posts and lists before, since I'm not much of a social network user. I do think there's value in understanding others who may have different patterns of behavior than yourself. However, I definitely don't think that people can be readily sorted into discrete little categories and labeled as such. Reading that list about "outgoing introverts", I am highly skeptical that the category is meaningful and that someone could say "yes I am dating an outgoing introvert and so all of these ten items all apply to them".
It sort of reads like a horoscope. Pretty much anyone can look at that list and say "hey, they are describing me pretty well."
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
My favorite are all the "Introverts are so misunderstood! We just love books!!!!!!" That several of my friends post regularly.
Also, while that list is bullshit (as are most lists of that type), I definitely think there are people who can be described as "outgoing introverts" and they likely fall near the middle of the introversion/extroversion spectrum.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Oh, sure. But the current "outgoing introvert" trend isn't actually aimed at a middle ground, but instead is there for people who are by all appearances normal, socially well adjusted extroverted human beings to take comfort in the fact that they too are secretly introverts and are therefore deep and moody and layered and mysterious and perceptive. (Because it's impossible to be that cool as an extrovert)
I can see the appeal, I guess. I'm a fairly introverted person who greatly values alone time, doesn't feel a need to be around people, doesn't like being touched or touchy feely people, doesn't like parties or crowds, and when I go out it's to this old little Irish pub where I sit at a table in the corner and drink scotch and listen to the band. The guy who usually sits across from me, Bill, is 80 years old. He doesn't talk much either. I certainly don't mind being around people or going dancing with my wife or going to concerts, and I've worked a job where I've had to be extremely outgoing and outspoken. It's just not really my thing, so to speak.
So I could call myself an "outgoing introvert" if I wanted to make myself feel special and unique, but the truth is I'm just a normal, (hopefully) well adjusted human being and am more than capable of relating to people without having to noun some adjectives into a seemingly arbitrary categorical definition.
Like, going by that list, if I don't return your calls, is it because I'm an extroverted introvert and that's just one of my quirks because science and stuff? Or am I just a dick?
If I'm grumpy after a long day of work and don't want to talk, does this behavior really need to be described as an ingrained facet of my special snowflake personality, or is it just because I'm tired?
If I'm "super flirty" with everyone, is this some inherent aspect of how "outgoing introverts" relate to people, or do I just have boundary issues?
It seems to serve a secondary function of justifying questionable, immature or even just normal behavior with a quick self-diagnosis. You're not immature, you're just different. Special. Deep and mysterious in a way all those "extroverts" (and why do we never see any articles about "10 signs you're an extrovert" or whatever) will never understand.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
Oh yeah, as I said the list is bullshit. I'm not sure what any of the items have to do being introverted.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Agreed Risu.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
This is being shared all over Facebook with headlines like "Finally!" "About time someone said it!"
This is news? I think anyone with an internet connection is well aware of Kanye's ego issues. I also think it's a bit scummy to bring his mother into it and also ruins any slim chance of him taking any part of that video to heart.
I thought it was going to end with some hack they pulled on him. Isn't that the point of Anonymous?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Did not watch the Kanye video.
POTUS was caught on camera calling him a name that probably violates Hatrack's TOS, but is ironically another name for Democrat.
'Nuff said.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Update: Another share, this time with the insinuation that Kanye himself created the video for publicity
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
This has been shared several times today. Taking a look at who they consider the World's Greatest Leaders...the hell kind of list is this? Random celebrities mixed with businessmen mixed with some good some mediocre political figures?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
what even is that list
what even is it
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Taylor Swift.
Taylor Swift is the 6th greatest leader in the world.
My sister told me she started reading Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. I remember lots of people here raving about it and I had wanted to read it ever since. My sister is telling me that the message of the book is sort of about trusting instincts over research and how information is often overanalyzed in science.
I'm surprised that a book with that message would get so much love here considering the exact opposite message was the consensus during vaccine discussions here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
gladwell gets some crap for being emblematic of 'pop science' but his writing tends to be rather well researched and thought provoking in a way that similar protoworks like "freakonomics" really isn't to me, and he has a long legacy of picking the right subjects of controversy and coming to the correct conclusions.
Blink is not actually about 'trusting instincts over research' — it's about understanding the nonintuitive ways in which our brains produce snap judgments, how it influences our thinking, and it talks a lot about in what good or bad ways it makes us respond to things and how it allows people or situations to game or short circuit our thought processes. There is a long section there analyzing the Amadou Diallo shooting which i legitimately consider one of the most important insights into why police shootings tend to happen the way they do and the paramount importance of the kind of training many police are not getting. But it does also include lots of insight into when our instinct is an inextricable and useful part of our decisionmaking processes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
that nailed the ending almost as hard as Diet Racism
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I just watched Diet Racism, that was awesome.
College Humor has some really funny videos.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Yeah the ending really nails it. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: My sister told me she started reading Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. I remember lots of people here raving about it and I had wanted to read it ever since. My sister is telling me that the message of the book is sort of about trusting instincts over research and how information is often overanalyzed in science.
I'm surprised that a book with that message would get so much love here considering the exact opposite message was the consensus during vaccine discussions here.
You would be surprised, because you haven't read the book, and don't understand the message at all.
It is not that information is "over analyzed," but that data is too often used to make assumptions about how people will behave in the long term, according to how they behave in the short term. It has a lot to do with what kind of foods we buy once, versus the foods we buy all our Iives, and how someone can influence long and short term decisions, stuff like that. It's also about how we have to look *more* at the data for situations in which we assume events are random or uncontrollable.
But good job not reading a book, and taking your second hand vague understanding of what it says, and turning that into a point about how the people here are hypocrits. That's not lazy or anything.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: I'm surprised that a book with that message would get so much love here considering the exact opposite message was the consensus during vaccine discussions here.
Let me rephrase that:
I'd be surprised if that's the message of the book because people here loved it and the exact opposite message was the consensus during vaccine discussions here.
Thanks for the summary.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
That isn't the message I took from the vaccination discussion here, but then again I was having trouble parsing the thread as a whole, so I'm not a good judge. For a while there in online discussions about vaccinations, it was becoming distressingly common for me to find out someone had been posting under a given goal but really trying to suss out potential arguments from the other side. Like, just testing the waters to see what's out there. I had real difficulty with entering into online vaccine discussions after that, in good part because my bullshit-o-meter had lost all specificity and would ping off all the time. [And I hold that this is not fair to anyone who has to interact with me. ]
Anyway, what I took from "Blink" wasn't that snap judgments are privileged over thoughtful research, but rather that both ways of making decisions are important and have their place in a full spectrum of understanding about how to make good decisions. In some cases, one approach is better than others, but neither one for always and in all cases.
[ April 11, 2015, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: That isn't the message I took from the vaccination discussion here, but then again I was having trouble parsing the thread as a whole, so I'm not a good judge.
I meant that the message from the discussion was the importance of research and data when it comes to an issue like vaccinating children and why they outweigh a parent's fear of vaccines stemming from their 'instincts' that something is wrong with them.
quote: For a while there in online discussions about vaccinations, it was becoming distressingly common for me to find out someone had been posting under a given goal but really trying to suss out potential arguments from the other side. Like, just testing the waters to see what's out there.
I hope you don't think that's what I was doing. My original goal really was to help my sister understand the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations to ameliorate her fears in getting her son the recommended immunizations, although it grew into trying to improve my understanding of the issue when dealing with anti-vaxxers in general.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:I meant that the message from the discussion was the importance of research and data when it comes to an issue like vaccinating children and why they outweigh a parent's fear of vaccines stemming from their 'instincts' that something is wrong with them.
Gladwell talks about both the strengths and pitfalls of snap judgments. Snap judgments are useful for certain decision-making procedures but not others, and I think decisions about vaccination belong to the latter group, at least for people not yet familiar with the full context.
It's getting the full context -- at some prior point -- that makes someone good at recognizing the truth from a slice. Most of us can do this by making a snap judgment about our interpersonal safety fairly accurately within a few moments of meeting someone. It's not perfect, and we're sometimes wrong (especially because we are biased by prejudices), but most all adults have had hundreds of thousands of interactions with other people to draw on.
In a different case, there is good research to show that the best single judge point of whether a baby is septic is the snap judgment of an experienced pediatrician. It's not a blood culture, which has a known failure rate of capture, or body temperature, or white blood cell count, or even the full amassing of all those data points. Instead, it's the first impression of a person who's seen literally tens of thousands of children in various stages of distress.
That does not mean that the snap judgement in this circumstance of an average person off the street is equally reliable. They are not equivalent.
For most people making snap judgments about vaccinations, the context is that of someone without the underlying foundation. They do not yet have the full context to draw on "instinctively." They are the guy off the street, not the experienced pediatrician. Not the same, even if both are making snap judgments based on little information specific to this circumstance.
But in many areas of life, the reverse is true. In those cases, we have a fuller context to draw on that makes the "slice" of information enough.
quote:I hope you don't think that's what I was doing. My original goal really was to help my sister understand the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations to ameliorate her fears in getting her son the recommended immunizations, although it grew into trying to improve my understanding of the issue when dealing with anti-vaxxers in general.
It's just that this is where my head is/was. I can't engage in good faith about vaccinations with people anymore. I can't do it. Not a reflection on a given person, just shell-shocked, gun-shy, hand-burnt, overly-pranked, what have you. I'm a suck at judging those situations these days.
Haven't got any perspective left! So no snap judgments there for me. I pass no judgements on individuals. I merely avoid those conversations now.
[ April 11, 2015, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
PS: I am a Big Fan of knowing what I don't know. I try to limit myself in areas I might go off the rails. That is most of life, actually, and it certainly includes how to talk about this topic online.
On the other hand, I'm like the Queen of Poop. Constipation? I got that shiz down, y'all. All kids are constipated. (even the ones with diarrhea)
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I think there can be a lot of confusion of closely related terms on this subject.
I think the usefulness and validity of "snap judgments" is predicated on two things: one's experience and expertise, and a time sensitive situation. I work as an analyst, and my boss - who has done this job for 16 years and literally designed and coded most of the tools I use for my job - can often (somewhat infuriatingly) come up behind me, see a project I'm working on, and then triage the incident and extrapolate a correct analysis and propose a solution in a few seconds where it might take me 15 minutes or even an hour+ of research and deduction. He only does this occasionally to show off and encourages us to be extremely thorough in our research and reporting, but in time sensitive situations (which occur fairly frequently) his expertise and ability to make "snap judgments" is absolutely crucial to our success.
This is often confused and conflated with "instinct", which I feel is a somewhat discrete (though related) concept. I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to explain what I mean adequately here, but I'll certainly try.
I don't think "instincts" are something we can definitively say are "good" or "bad" without qualification. By which I mean, instincts are, or at least, can be, honed by experience and expertise to be extraordinarily useful. I.e, we make "snap decisions" all the time in social situations based on instinct (and it usually works out for us), but that instinct has been honed by a lifetime of experience in human interaction. I think in many cases what people attribute to "innate instinct" is their mind rapidly putting together small clues and synthesizing the best possible solution. In other words, "instinct" is that same analytical process, just sped up and mostly subconscious. I certainly don't believe "instinct" to be some mythical, mysterious or infallible source of wisdom that one taps into, and while I don't think many in the "anti-vax" crowd believe that either, it certainly gets referred to and treated that way.
So, to borrow CT's example (sorry), I think the "snap judgments" of an experienced pediatrician about sepsis (which is also a very time sensitive determination) would be of enormous value due to the knowledge and sheer amount of experience said pediatrician has in their field. My instincts on the matter, otoh, would probably be next to worthless.
So the reason I don't think "instinct" is a valid reason when deciding whether or not to vaccinate one's child really boils down to the fact it doesn't meet those two criteria:
First, it's not at all a time sensitive decision. It's one that you are able to carefully contemplate and research and seek expert opinion on.
Second, it's not an issue which most parents have the experience or expertise - taking in consideration of all the possible factors - to make a snap decision on. That being said, it's not an issue that *I* have said experience or expertise on either, so I can't definitively claim any sort of authority in telling parents whether or not they should vaccinate their children. (though I can certainly refer them to well written articles that explain in unambiguous terms why they should) But I do feel comfortable saying that it's not a decision I believe should be left up to "instincts."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Others have said it, but instinct has a connotation that doesn't really match with some of its most common uses. For example, in the case of CT, Turd Whisperer (I'm sorry, I really am, that just came to me and I couldn't not say it!), is instinct the correct word for her experience based on scores, hundreds, thousands of similar cases that give her dozens of points of data for each one?.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I don't really know if it is or not. Thus my convoluted post above - I honestly think it's a term that has such vastly different connotations for different people that it causes this sort of confusion. (to the point where apparently Gaal's sister is able to (intentionally?) misread a book due to difference in definition) Rakeesh - what do you think of how I (attempte to) define and demystify the term?
Also, "Turd Whisperer". (I imagine it being whispered in a deep, breathless-movie-announcer-voiceover. "the tuuurd whisperer *brief montage of CT looking dramatically comtemplative while reading a chart, maybe whipping off a pair of glasses*)
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I am, though. I really am the tuuurd whisperer.
---- Edited to add: This ... this is what it comes down to. My life, 'tis not for naught; 'tis for the glory of poop.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tis the twinkling turd radiant of itself, or does your odyssey for its odious odors obtain its glory?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I'm a pragmatist. Quantity over quality. A veritable mogul of merde.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm now imagining CT in a Guy Fawkes mask singing an ode to poo in Hugo Weaving's voice.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I can imagine a similar experiment where this girl feeds a handful of all-natural organic grapes to a dog which then gets extremely sick. She then looks at the camera and asks, "If this is what happens to a dog, do you think you should be eating it?"
Why should I care about the effects something has on a sweet potato's roots growing ability? I'm not a sweet potato. I actually have a pretty different chemical makeup.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I'm not a sweet potato.
Citation needed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
chives needed
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Sweet potato and chives?
Gross dude.
Posted by David Manning (Member # 2076) on :
I think therefore I'm not a yam?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I was between posting this here or in the "Do Jews support Obama?" thread:
A friend of mine posted an article about Obama meeting with Jewish leaders to address their fears about Iran and had this to say:
"It's not about meeting with "Jewish" leaders, it's about meeting with Israeli leaders. Israel is not just a religious state, it is a democracy, whose existence maybe threatened. Israel consists of more than just strictly "Jewish leaders." These are Muslims, Jews, Christians, and absolutely people who respect freedom. This meeting only further demonstrates this president's anti-Semitisim."
What.
I want to comment on this but I don't trust the conversation to stay civil, and since it's a friend whom I haven't spoken to in a while it's not really worth it.
I'm attempting to write a piece titled "Is Obama anti-Semitic?" and lead into why Jews don't need to vote Republican in the upcoming election just to feel like they're supporting Israel but I'm not sure if I have the writing chops for it.
Would anyone here be up for reviewing it and giving me some feedback when I'm done with it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Was the meeting with Israeli leaders? If so, then it was a bad headline but that is hardly the President's fault. Are they under the impression that Israeli leaders monolithically "respect freedom"? What does that even mean?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
...if so, it's kind of sadly funny that someone felt the need to correct the headline based on a distinction between Israel and Jewish leaders.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
The YouTube video I just posted?
No, it's just a video of Obama "fact checking" some of his critics and calling out some of the people who were fear mongering about what the country would look like under his presidency.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Sorry, I was referring to the post from last week. I didn't check the timestamp and assumed it was fresh in your memory, sorry.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I don't think he meant the headline was incorrect, I think he was trying to say that Obama shouldn't be just meeting with Jewish leaders, he should be meeting with Israeli leaders.
How Obama taking the time to alleviate Jewish leaders' concerns with Iran "further demonstrates his anti-Semitism" is beyond me, though.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I think it does an okay job of laying out the problem that I think everyone knows is a problem, but, without having taken the time to actually check out their website, the method to their solution seems a little strange. I think the best fix would simply be for all of us to become informed voters. If a politician gets his vote bought and does one of those sketchy bill passes then we make sure he doesn't get reelected, and make sure the challenger gets the message that if he pulls what the incumbent did, he will also be out of a job come next election. Campaign money from lobbyists won't mean much if they know they won't get reelected if there actions don't align with what's in the best interest of the public. And I'm assuming it wouldn't be cost efficient for the lobbyists to having to keep offering lucrative jobs to a new official every campaign cycle.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:ers. If a politician gets his vote bought and does one of those sketchy bill passes then we make sure he doesn't get reelected...
While we're at it, I'd like a pony.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
It just seems like it'd a fix to the symptom and not the problem. The problem is that money CAN win elections because we don't vote.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I vote. :-(.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: I vote. :-(.
Me too.
Speak for yourself, Gaal!
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I vote too. By "we" I meant Americans in general.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Her mission is an extension of that of Hussein Obama, to foment unrest and destabilize America. Her message was clear, “whatever is wrong with your life is America and the white man’s fault, and whitey owes you.”
Decide for yourself if that is a fair characterization.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I vote too. By "we" I meant Americans in general.
Americans in general vote. Over 60% of registered voters turned out in 2012- higher than any election since 1948. In addition, a higher percentage of voting population turned out in 2012 than has turned out since the 1970s- and that is despite a lower rate of registration and higher barriers to register. So people seem to be voting, in general.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: I vote. :-(.
yeah thanks a lot ugh
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I vote too. By "we" I meant Americans in general.
Americans in general vote. Over 60% of registered voters turned out in 2012- higher than any election since 1948. In addition, a higher percentage of voting population turned out in 2012 than has turned out since the 1970s- and that is despite a lower rate of registration and higher barriers to register. So people seem to be voting, in general.
Vote well*.
There.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i want you to get them into the raw milk movement using some woo claim that raw milk helps you be immune to vaccine virus shedding. So that they start drinking unpasteurized milk. And literally die.
his super mega logic with that death toll between ice cream and raw milk is my absolute favorite
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
That was my first thought as well. I think there are slightly more people that eat ice cream than drink raw milk
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Mercologic™ Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So this showed up in my FB feed this morning:
quote: Her mission is an extension of that of Hussein Obama, to foment unrest and destabilize America. Her message was clear, “whatever is wrong with your life is America and the white man’s fault, and whitey owes you.”
Decide for yourself if that is a fair characterization.
That that kind of extreme disinformation is believed is super depressing. I cannot think that whoever came up with that summary was being sincere, but other people believe it. This is terrible.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Mercologic™
Where things like "percentages" are just MNCs way of hiding the truth.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I cannot think that whoever came up with that summary was being sincere, but other people believe it. This is terrible.
I want to punch O'Reilly in his smug little face
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Bill O'Reilly saying "I do know we are heading in the wrong direction on just about every important issue" is just him providing an invitation to feast on his tears for watching his platform literally die off
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Thanks Shia LaBeouf, I really needed that, said no one.
quote:Science has now established that human DNA is present on conception. So there really isn't much debate about it.
*adjusts monocle* You don't say.
quote:Going forward, talking points believes America is in for a big shock. I don't know how that shock is going to be delivered. But I do know we are heading in the wrong direction on just about every important issue and the polls back me up. Two thirds of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction. Whether it's another brutal terror attack here or an economic collapse of some kind, I cannot tell you.
There you have it. He has predicted that some kind of bad thing will happen. Therefore it will have happened because we didn't do what he says.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
In tonight's episode of Grumpy Old Man Who Knows When Things Were Better: tides. How do they work? No one knows!
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Back to O'Reilly, this was quite a howler:
quote:Science has now established that human DNA is present on conception. So there really isn't much debate about it.
*adjusts monocle* You don't say.
*nods* Yes, I'm sure you've heard about the recent scientific breakthrough that, at long last, proved there is most certainly human DNA present at conception. (which the feminazi abortionists have vociferously denied for years) If you haven't, then it's because the liberal media has been trying to keep it under wraps. Good thing we have Bill O'Reilly to keep us informed.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I don't know, science always changes its mind. In 5 years science will say there is no human DNA present!
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Did you guys watch the video or just read the transcript? The video has a Watters World segment where Watters totally debunks global warming and other liberal myths with unedited interviews with liberal spokespeople.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I hadn't watched that - I just read the transcript.
I watched it. Wow, I'm rethinking everything, knowing that someone was able to find some people who vote left but can't articulate support for their position(s). Blastocysts have DNA??? Liberal idiots exist??? Thank you Bill O'Reilly.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
In all seriousness, it's not like he's the first person to use the shtick where an interviewer puts people on the spot (seriously, asking a guy to explain why his state is predominantly liberal or the benefits of legalizing marijuana and then giving them less than 3 seconds before cutting away does not make him dumb. I'm not ashamed to admit it would probably take me about that long to compose a response in my head on the spot) films their response, then cherry-picks and selectively edits the 'funniest' responses. But he's the first person I've seen use it to make a statement about the way most people who follow a political ideology are. Jimmy Kimmel does it all the time and I think Jay Leno used to. But they did it for schadenfreude laughs and didn't use it to pivot to a larger point about the way most people are.
[ June 01, 2015, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: GaalDornick ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Thanks Shia LaBeouf, I really needed that, said no one.
What's that weird little hands together squat thing he's doing at the end?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: In all seriousness, it's not like he's the first person to use the shtick where an interviewer puts people on the spot (seriously, asking a guy to explain why his state is predominantly liberal or the benefits of legalizing marijuana and then giving them less than 3 seconds before cutting away does not make him dumb. I'm not ashamed to admit it would probably take me about that long to compose a response in my head on the spot) films their response, then cherry-picks and selectively edits the 'funniest' responses. But he's the first person I've seen use it to make a statement about the way most people who follow a political ideology are. Jimmy Kimmel does it all the time and I think Jay Leno used to. But they did it for schadenfreude laughs and didn't use it to pivot to a larger point about the way most people are.
Actually I see this as worse in a couple of ways. And I'm not a fan of "man on the street," and "there you have it," sort of segments in the first place. There is, as you point out, an incentive for the editor to simply cut creatively, and to only show the responses from people who aren't comfortable in front of the camera.
No, I find this worse also because the segment shows the interviewer's mocking questions, without showing what prompted them. That's downright dishonest, and as long as O'Reilly is still pretending to not be a comedy show (haha), he has a responsibility not to bend the truth into a bizarre and salty pretzel.
But that's all old news. O'Reilly has been blatantly lying to and manipulating his audience for years. It's hardly a secret.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
It doesn't seem like O'Leary is keeping a straight line of reasoning here. He starts off defending the vilification of the 1% with arguments about the importance of small business owners. Small business owners aren't the 1%. Also, he keeps talking about the lack of jobs, but we're sitting on a 5.4% unemployment rate right now that keeps going down. Doesn't exactly corroborate his story that the biggest problem is lack of jobs.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
It doesn't seem like O'Leary is keeping a straight line of reasoning here. He starts off defending the vilification of the 1% with arguments about the importance of small business owners. Small business owners aren't the 1%.
Actually, quite a few small business owners *are* the 1%. "The top 1% by wealth" is actually an amorphous hodgepodge of people of various standards of living (anywhere from upper middle class to "owns their own fleet of personal jets") and disparate incomes, due to A) various forms of wealth generating different amounts of disposable income and B) the fact that it's not a homogenous level of wealth but actually is the most severely skewed to the right. (i.e, the top .5% is roughly 10x as wealthy as the bottom .5%, and so on, until you reach the top .1% where you see an enormous amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of a very few) This can be annoying, since it allows anyone to cherry pick "the top 1%" to mean anything they want it to mean: i.e, Kevin O'Leary (who is a smug, evil little man) can rightly say that a good percentage of the people in the 1% are small business owners as if that brushes aside all of the hedge fund managers and CEOs, etc that own a high percentage of the wealth there. And it's not like wealth is necessarily the best metric to use.
To give you an example, it's entirely possible - even probable, considering the razor thin profit margins a lot of new businesses run at (if they're even profitable at all) - for the owner of $5 million business to earn around $50,000 a year in disposable income.
It's also possible, and unfortunately in our consumerist society even very likely, for someone who makes a salary of $250,000 a year to be hundreds of thousands, or even a million dollars in debt - fancy car, lots of credit card debt, student loans, mortgage on a million dollar home, etc.
The first person is in the top 1% (or close to it) and the second person actually has quite a bit of negative wealth and is in the bottom 10%. But the second person clearly has a much higher standard of living and a lot more disposable income than the first.
I've written pretty extensively about this in other places, but when talking about income inequality and distribution of wealth, there are a lot more factors that go into the equation than what percentile you fall into when calculating net worth. Treating (or even taxing) the top 1% as if they were a homogenous group is a pretty dangerous idea - you need to look at how they got that wealth, how much wealth they accrue every year, how much of that wealth goes back into the economy (i.e, by business does well and the valuation doubles, and I hire 5 more people) vs. how much goes towards enriching oneself (my payday loan company drove 5,000 families into bankruptcy and has thousands more trapped in an endless cycle of debt, another yacht for me!), etc. etc.
The "top 1%" is an easy metric to throw out there and argue about, but unfortunately also a pretty meaningless one.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Thanks Shia LaBeouf, I really needed that, said no one.
What's that weird little hands together squat thing he's doing at the end?
This video makes me supremely uncomfortable. I know the Germans have a word for it. It's when you are so embarrassed for someone you want to turn off your ears and crawl out of your skin.
My body language reading skills ping off that he's psyching himself up to just go for it, man, like give it all the energy and more, and it'll be cool, it'll be better than you think, and people will be like "cool, man," because the force of your passion will carry it through. Fake it until you make it just do it just do it HERE GOES.
Auuurrrghghhh *wince wince cringe like a spider
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
fremdschämen
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Shia LeBeouf seems to be one of the most earnestly weird famous people ever.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
THANK YOU, Kate.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
What's that weird little hands together squat thing he's doing at the end?
This video makes me supremely uncomfortable. I know the Germans have a word for it. It's when you are so embarrassed for someone you want to turn off your ears and crawl out of your skin.
My body language reading skills ping off that he's psyching himself up to just go for it, man, like give it all the energy and more, and it'll be cool, it'll be better than you think, and people will be like "cool, man," because the force of your passion will carry it through. Fake it until you make it just do it just do it HERE GOES.
Auuurrrghghhh *wince wince cringe like a spider
On the basis of this description I will jump into an open manhole cover before watching this. Seriously, if I watch it it'll have to be old school Stalinist style. Walking down a drab, poorly lit grey hallway, turn a corner, BAM! A big dose of embarrassment humor served up fresh straight out of the hot pipes of the Net.
No thank you!
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Hey Rakeesh! *tacklehug
Um, the followup mashup video made it bearable and kind of hilarious. I would definitely avoid the original. But inserting him into an Avengers or Batman movie made it contextually more appropriate than just him pacing around alone with spasmodic episodes of screaming.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Not to say that Shia LeBeouf isn't earnestly weird - I still think he is - but this puts things into context:
We don't have to be *quite* as embarrassed for him. It's meant to be a parody, and was meant to be remixed (that's why it was released with a creative commons license and was filmed with a green screen).
Posted by vegimo (Member # 12618) on :
A more realistic video about Shia LaBeouf.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
That's... incredible.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
But wait he's still alive! Shia surprise!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Actual Cannibal Shia Labeouf
A Two Page RPG
You’re walking in the woods. There’s no one around and your phone is dead. Out of the corner of your eye you spot him… Shia Labeouf He gets down on all fours and breaks into a sprint! He’s gaining on you!” Premise
You are one of the unlucky ones. You have been caught up in a deadly struggle with Shia Labeouf. Band together with other strangers to escape, outwit and possibly even kill Shia Labeouf. Character Creation
You will need :- A name A brief description of your character An item you have in your possession. How to Play
Your character can be anyone. Unless the Shia Master (SM) specifically stipulates it during an action, your general fitness and body shape won’t limit you in any particular way. The item in your possession can be virtually anything with the exception of the following: A working cellphone or other communication device. Large quantities of ammo. Items that immediately and completely resolve the situation. Paper bags with which to trap Shia Labeouf. Each character begins play with 5 blood tokens. These represent your wellbeing. As you are attacked and move through various challenges, you will lose blood tokens. When your Shia Master (SM) requires it, roll a D6. If the number is equal or greater than your current number of blood tokens, you lose one, which is discarded into the centre of the table. Once you lose all five, the next attack will be fatal.The only goal is to survive and escape the scenario you are in. Shia Labeouf will hunt you as long as you remain in the vicinity. The item you have can possibly aid you in some way, though your SM will determine how helpful it is in a given situation. Actions are taken in the following order - The GM describes the scene -> The players offer their actions -> the GM will give how the environment and Shia respond to them. Once the new situation has been described, the cycle repeats. Good luck…. SM’s Section
This is a little or no prep one-shot RPG. Character creation takes about 60 seconds. This is a collaborative story-telling game and has no stats and uses only a single die to do every significant action. Descriptiveness is encouraged! It’s unlikely the game will last more than 2 hours. Shia Labeouf is fast, powerful and possibly naked. Think the bastard son of Jason and Mike Myers with the cruelty of Freddy Krueger and the speed and power of the Wolfman. He hunts mercilessly and will not stop until he has tasted blood and consumed the flesh of his quarry. Gently guide your players by describing the areas they are in. Unless their actions are completely ridiculous, allow them to attempt them. Success is automatic but blood tokens are not unlimited. For game purposes Shia Labeouf has a minimum of 5 +[2x the number of players] in blood tokens, though the number can be adjusted by the SM if they wish to increase the challenge. If the players attack Shia, either directly or with environmental hazards, remove one of his blood tokens then have him retreat to give the players a brief respite. If the players somehow manage to deplete all of Shia’s tokens, they are victorious but forever scarred by their horrifying experience. If a player dies as a result of expending all their blood tokens, these discarded tokens are added to Shia’s total as he consumes the body, bones and all! Of course, while he feasts, the players can flee unimpeded. Interrupting his feeding will greatly anger Shia and cause him to target the interrupter more viciously than the others. Each scenario is an exercise in improvisation for the SM. You are given a setting and expected to run with it in whatever direction Shia chases your players. Think of it as a particularly tongue in cheek horror film. Vivid descriptions are key, whereas maps and miniatures are discouraged. You describe a scene, the players respond and you insert Shia's actions where appropriate. Players roll for actions that may result in harm, physical or mental. This game is not intended to be fair to the players. People will die. If the players manage to get into a safe situation (locked in a safe room, trapping Shia permanently) you can expend 2 of his blood tokens to cause a Shia Surprise! where he escapes the situation, however implausible his escape may be. Do not allow the players a huge amount of time to think or plan. More than five minutes of safety should be interrupted, using a Shia Surprise! if necessary. Feel free to play on horror story cliches and make the game as serious or silly as you wish. Silly is kind of inevitable though. Some locations are given below to get you started. Flip a coin for the left or right column then roll a d6 to decide the nightmare that awaits your players! Hunting Grounds
Hunting Grounds A Dark Wood A locked shopping mall A high school or university campus A large manor house on the hill A ship at sea (or in space) A national park The ghetto at 3am An office building A suburb on Halloween night A summer camp A sprawling subway system A disused amusement park
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I have a few far right-wing Israeli friends on Facebook that post a lot of garbage, usually about Obama hating Israel, and when I saw this link described as 'BBC's blatant bias against Israel' I assumed it would just be them asking hard-hitting questions, probably about Netanyahu's hypocrisy. I was disappointed to see that it was pretty bad questions. The South African apartheid question was irrelevant to the topic and implied a false equivalence between South Africa and Israel. I thought Tzipi Livni handled the interview beautifully.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Honestly, the people on FB who are claiming that the Charleston killings are "just as much about religion as they are about race" are stomping on my very last nerve.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
It's been making its rounds on FB and I find it pretty fascinating. On one hand, I can identify pretty strongly with his arguments, having seen quite a bit of the sort of anti-factual, witch hunt mentality he's describing. On the other, his use of "millennial" and the way he describes us is pretty annoying, and in a lot of ways defeats the whole point of his article. (by which I mean, arguing against having facts discarded in favor of criticizing assumed motive based on identity, while at the same time establishing a sweepingly categorical identity for your opponents and creating a BS motive for an entire generation of people to behave a certain way... is a little on the nose to say the least)
Also, I think he greatly exaggerates the power and influence of the group he's describing. They're generally viewed as something of a joke and their methods are routinely mocked and discredited, even (especially) by people of my generation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The article is "hyper-literate," in the way that a transformer's movie is hyper-kinetic. It reads like he googled the sparks notes for the authorities he claims as justification for his arguments:
quote: When George Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four (and here some will lambast me for picking a white male author from a historically colonialist power despite the fact that he fought and wrote against this colonialism), he wrote it to warn against the several dangers of extremism on either side of the political spectrum. Orwell’s magnum opus is about authoritarianism on both ends of the political spectrum.
For starters, this is most definitely not a satisfying thesis for Nineteen Eighty-Four unless you happen to be in the 10th grade and need fodder for a 5 paragraph essay.
Nineteen Eighty-Four has a much more prosaic and complicated moral undercarriage. While on the surface it is about authoritarianism, more deeply, it depicts the inability of humanity to confront its own history and its own nature. That human beings are prone to the ecstasies of power and the abuse of power, and that we are bound to continue to repeat and to perfect our ability to rule and to control ourselves, and our surroundings- to the extent of stripping away our very humanity, is what the book is really all about. Long, long passages of the book deal with this issue in great detail.
Orwell treats the state of the world in Nineteen Eighty-Four as a mere outgrowth of the human condition- an inevitability, not a failure of some political ideology. That human beings would pursue power over their surroundings by plundering the concept of individual thinking was his primary focus. His thesis was essentially that this was an inevitable result of our nature. It's a purely pessimistic work.
Second, and more importantly, so what? This is where the 10th grade style and depth of argumentation really kicks in. He cites a supposed interpretation of Orwell as if that in itself is proof of his point. As if the fact that Orwell's book exists means that a) it is right, and b) it is in support of his arguments. One, it isn't, and two, he makes no effort whatsoever to explain why it might be.
I dunno. Don't believe everything you read.
quote:
quote: 2+2=5 “In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy.” — George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
This particular brand of social justice advocacy assaults reason in a particularly frightening way — by outright denying it and utilizing fear-mongering to discourage dissent. There is no gray: only black and white. One must mimic the orthodoxy or be barred forcibly from the chapel and jeered at by the townspeople. To disagree with the millennial social justice orthodoxy is to make a pariah of oneself willingly. Adherence to the narrative is the single litmus test for collegiate (and beyond) social acceptance these days.
Again, no, no, and no. 2+2=5 is about a demonstration of complete power over reality. There is no gray, but there is also no black or white. In fact, there is a passage in the book that specifically refers to the idea that Winston is expected to be able believe that black *is* white. This is not about the twisting of reality to fit certain parameters- it is about the complete destruction of reality.
It is about the person being replaced by the system- not merely adopting the system. In the book, O'Brien (the chief interlocutor in Winston's sessions in the Ministry of Love) is arguing that the human will to power can overcome even simple logic, and can eventually replace all human agency. He even uses a device to demonstrate to Winston that his ability to comprehend simple logic can be overcome by a force of will.
The ecstasy of power that O'Brien describes is one of "a boot smashing the face of a child... forever." It is a total dominion over the world through the sheer exercise of power for the sake of power. It is not about shunning, or collecting influence, but about totally eradicating the individual will through a patient, overwhelming application of force. And O'Brien states quite plainly that the ultimate goal is: "Power. Pure Power."
[ July 16, 2015, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: The article is "hyper-literate,"
I feel like I'm missing something here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
identity politics circles have indeed warped into a cyclically radicalized netherworld of bizarre and cannibalistic psychodrama but at the same time i couldn't even read through half of that article without haaaaaaaaating the author
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: identity politics circles have indeed warped into a cyclically radicalized netherworld of bizarre and cannibalistic psychodrama but at the same time i couldn't even read through half of that article without haaaaaaaaating the author
Yeah. He really does himself in.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: The article is "hyper-literate,"
I feel like I'm missing something here.
No, perhaps I should have explained. The article makes use of something the author has no doubt seen better writers do, splashing out from the page with references to a large number of related works. I used to do the same thing when I thought the epitome of modern writing was The LoveSong of J. Alfred Prufrock (itself written by a 19 year old). It's just done very badly.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The article makes some theoretically good points in a mess of hasty generalization and unintentional irony.
This stuck out:
quote:A millennial social justice advocate can discount an opinion simply because it is said or written by a group they feel oppresses them. It is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem whereby one attacks the person saying an argument rather than the argument itself. But this logical fallacy has become the primary weapon of the millennial social justice advocate. It is miasma to academia, to critical thinking, and to intellectual honesty. Yet it is the primary mode of operating on college campuses nationwide.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: fremdschämen
Finally, a one word description for how I feel when I watch every episode of The Office.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I didn't actually get through the entire article. At about the tenth time I saw him speak for Millennials I lost interest.
He was making good points about the social media zeitgeist...but I don't know why he's saying it's a phenomenon of millennials.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Maybe because "millennials" are the go to butt monkeys when it comes time to criticize anything one feels is wrong with society. It's actually an especially irritating trend for me, as well as for most of my friends who are veterans.
There's nothing quite like the bemused look on a 20-something veterans' face when a soft, fat old man starts ranting about "your generation" and how lazy, spoiled, and entitled millennials are. I know for me, it helps to imagine them curled up bawling like a little child when confronted with the physical and psychological toll of working 100 hour weeks for 7 months in 110+ degree weather, or going a month without a shower or something.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Alright. im an annoyed millennial but I don't have any of that.
Well, I've worked 45 hour weeks for more than half a decade in 120+ degree plus environments. But that's just the life of a cook.
But still.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Maybe because "millennials" are the go to butt monkeys when it comes time to criticize anything one feels is wrong with society. It's actually an especially irritating trend for me, as well as for most of my friends who are veterans.
There's nothing quite like the bemused look on a 20-something veterans' face when a soft, fat old man starts ranting about "your generation" and how lazy, spoiled, and entitled millennials are. I know for me, it helps to imagine them curled up bawling like a little child when confronted with the physical and psychological toll of working 100 hour weeks for 7 months in 110+ degree weather, or going a month without a shower or something.
One might almost begin to think that 'kids these days' is a recurring theme, particularly in wealthy nations when things always seemed better when the ranter in question was young and had few cares and many luxuries and things were done for them that they now have to do for others.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Alright. im an annoyed millennial but I don't have any of that.
Well, I've worked 45 hour weeks for more than half a decade in 120+ degree plus environments. But that's just the life of a cook.
But still.
That's pretty arduous as well, and not something I would ever want to do.
The point is you've worked incredibly hard to make it to a point where you're in a relatively comfortable, middle-class income job in your late 20s, and yet are often castigated as lazy, entitled, weak, and unmotivated by people who often as not walked into their careers right out college. I don't really understand where all the distain and contempt for our generation comes from.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It doesn't have a good explanation, but it's not a mystery (not lecturing or anything-I think you probably meant 'good explanation' anyway). You can read 'kids these days' comments, literally written down, in the decades prior to the assassination of Julius Caesar. One generation bitches about the other, in frequently recurring ways.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I've been seeing videos and posts containing references to the Munich Pact and the deal between Clinton and NK while saying, "History repeats itself..."
I recently read a book called A Skeptic's Guide to American History that makes and backs up the point that history does not repeat itself. I wish there was a way to summarize this in a Facebook comment.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It doesn't have a good explanation, but it's not a mystery (not lecturing or anything-I think you probably meant 'good explanation' anyway). You can read 'kids these days' comments, literally written down, in the decades prior to the assassination of Julius Caesar. One generation bitches about the other, in frequently recurring ways.
Still.
This feels different. Maybe my judgment is colored by the fact that it's aimed at me (though honestly I feel like I have little in common with how millennials are often described these days, probably because I'm in the older part of the millennial spectrum).
I've heard a lot of "kids these days" throughout history. I've read it.
But I have a hard time remembering a situation where the current generation and the older one are so divided by culture, where the "kids" have so much stacked against them, and are still reviled the way Millennials are.
Previous generations were slammed but they were still by and large earning a decent living and getting their lives started right, or they were out fighting wars or something else we label an accomplishment. The youth of America today are the best educated but poorest in almost a hundred years. By and large they did exactly what they were told to do by their parents. And now they're being blamed for it not working out.
It just feels different.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But I have a hard time remembering a situation where the current generation and the older one are so divided by culture, where the "kids" have so much stacked against them, and are still reviled the way Millennials are.
Heh. I was in the latter half of GenX. We had it hard. GenY needs to just get over it and stop whining. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I would be surprised if the poverty, unemployment and median wage numbers bore that out. But like I said, maybe I'm too close since I'm a part of the currently maligned generation.
I personally am not complaining much because things are finally starting to go well for me. But I'm a relative outlier to my generation as a whole. But I get my hackles up when I see just how crappy a hand we were dealt and then get blamed for not making better decisions as toddlers and teens when this mess was brewing. Like duh, I should have voted to keep Glass-Steagal instead of learning algebra.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think it's just the fundamental attribution error applied to generations instead of individuals. Stuff that went well for my generation was because we were awesome, stuff that sucked wasn't our fault. Inverted for the youngsters. Then confirmed/reinforced when one encounters really crappy examples of the younger generation. I'm even tempted to tell stories of terrible millennials, but I'm trying to remind myself that those people stood out for sucking, and it doesn't make them truly representative.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Alright. im an annoyed millennial but I don't have any of that.
Well, I've worked 45 hour weeks for more than half a decade in 120+ degree plus environments. But that's just the life of a cook.
But still.
That's pretty arduous as well, and not something I would ever want to do.
The point is you've worked incredibly hard to make it to a point where you're in a relatively comfortable, middle-class income job in your late 20s, and yet are often castigated as lazy, entitled, weak, and unmotivated by people who often as not walked into their careers right out college. I don't really understand where all the distain and contempt for our generation comes from.
The disdain and contempt is required so that the baby boomers and Gen-Xers can feel less guilty about systematically dismantling the educational and civil institutions that provided them the means to accumulate wealth, but threaten to undermine that wealth as they are aged out of their prime earning years. It's not really that complicated.
And anyway, all "good things" come to an end. As the boomer start dying (and that is happening already), there will be an acceleration of wealth transfer to younger generations. Part of the overall problem is that the baby boomers were too rich, too highly paid, too heavily entitled, and too politically powerful. As that has begun to wane, we've already seen some of the results. As they retire and begin their retirements, wages and labor demand will rise to fill that gap. We will probably never be as rich as they were in comparison to our own children and grandchildren, but we'll do better in other ways.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: Just goes to show how much we (society) don't care about police shootings. You only care about the black kids getting shot because the media wants you to think this is a race issue when it's not. It has everything to do with improper training and a lack of accountability. They literally tell you what you should and should not care about and when you should care about it and you don't even know it. Watching the news doesn't leave you informed, it shapes your values and morals into whatever is decided for you...
This commentary followed a link about the unarmed white teen being shot and the parents wanting to know where the outrage is. I don't disagree that improper training and lack of accountability are a part of it. I also think statistics make it pretty apparent that it is also a race issue, since it disproportionately affects minorities two-to-one and it's not just the media only choosing to publicize the white officer on unarmed black man killings. I want to discuss this but I'm having trouble articulating why it's a race issue past the stats (those don't always seem to work on confirmation biases). How would you all address this issue?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Someone has already jumped in and accused the poster of being racist and now it's turned into a discussion of 'playing the race card'. I'm thinking about writing something along the lines of: Imagine someone complained about all the attention Jews got in the Holocaust since the Nazis killed other people too. They think the Holocaust turned into Jewish propaganda and no one cares about the other people the Nazis killed. Everyone that was killed is tragic, but the numbers also matter and the Jews were disproportionately killed in the Holocaust which is why it's mostly associated with them. The same way that in this country blacks are disproportionately killed by law enforcement. The white kid who was shot is of course a tragedy, but it doesn't take away from the systemic racism blacks face from law enforcement.
Does that comparison make sense?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Will there be children who differ from the norm? Of course. Some girls are into sports, and some boys like to read.
...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, what I don't get about that whole kerfluffle is this: if it is so obvious that boys should only like certain toys and girls should only like other ones, why would we need Target to label them by gender in the first place?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Will there be children who differ from the norm? Of course. Some girls are into sports, and some boys like to read.
...
Fun fact: This is the same woman who thinks that paid maternity leave is unfair to babies.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, what I don't get about that whole kerfluffle is this: if it is so obvious that boys should only like certain toys and girls should only like other ones, why would we need Target to label them by gender in the first place?
For the poor parents who just want to go to the store without being lectured to.
By all means tempt our children with labels that tell them what Mattel, Fisher Price, Lego, et all think about gender, but don't you dare get in on that action Target or Walmart!
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Will there be children who differ from the norm? Of course. Some girls are into sports, and some boys like to read.
...
Fun fact: This is the same woman who thinks that paid maternity leave is unfair to babies.
No joke, she says that the extra time with the baby will mean that bonds are deeper and returning to work is harder on the baby.
I'm sure she feels the same away about companies being generous to their employees and treating them like family. Clearly that makes it so much harder for everybody when it's time to fire them.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, what I don't get about that whole kerfluffle is this: if it is so obvious that boys should only like certain toys and girls should only like other ones, why would we need Target to label them by gender in the first place?
Well, to be fair, it wasn't obvious to me that reading is mostly a girl thing. I needed someone to label that for me.
But yeah, that was my thought when she wrote:
quote: Parent whose children fall outside the norm are perfectly capable of buying their children whatever it is they’re interested in. They don’t need Target to hold their hand and lead the way.
But parents with normal children do?!
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, what I don't get about that whole kerfluffle is this: if it is so obvious that boys should only like certain toys and girls should only like other ones, why would we need Target to label them by gender in the first place?
For the poor parents who just want to go to the store without being lectured to.
I was up all night so my sarcasm detector may be broken, but isn't removing the signs sort of doing the opposite of that?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, what I don't get about that whole kerfluffle is this: if it is so obvious that boys should only like certain toys and girls should only like other ones, why would we need Target to label them by gender in the first place?
For the poor parents who just want to go to the store without being lectured to.
I was up all night so my sarcasm detector may be broken, but isn't removing the signs sort of doing the opposite of that?
Interesting... Here in the Czech Republic, I don't notice much gender specificity in the toy store. There must be some, but the majority of toys seem to be grouped around particular themes. There's a section with dinosaurs, cars, dolls, balls, etc. It seems to me that kids are fairly capable of signaling what interests them in all that. Our son, though he's only a year old, wants balls and cars, and will settle for picture books. But it's not like that's difficult to find.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, what I don't get about that whole kerfluffle is this: if it is so obvious that boys should only like certain toys and girls should only like other ones, why would we need Target to label them by gender in the first place?
For the poor parents who just want to go to the store without being lectured to.
I was up all night so my sarcasm detector may be broken, but isn't removing the signs sort of doing the opposite of that?
I was being sarcastic. You aren't wrong, it's just these people see the signs coming down as a lecture just as surely as the signs going up.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
So this has been circulating around my FB feed a lot.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That's bizarre.
And mostly everything being described is illegal, including tax fraud, welfare fraud, disability fraud, and some other stuff.
Also... the guy buys a house? So he has 400 grand lying around to kick off this cycle of abuse? Does he not pay taxes on the property, the income from the property, etc? And does he not go to federal prison for defrauding the government by renting it to himself?
I've been posting that Snopes article as a response for a while now whenever it pops up.
But the rent one is truly ridiculous. We actually intend on purchasing a house here in January with the VA Loan program and then renting it out whenever we leave. It'll be a good, stable investment (especially since our in-laws intend to live here for the rest of their lives, and my FIL has agreed to manage the property if/when we do this), but after doing the math we realized we also wouldn't be able to draw an income from it for 30 years. Between general excise tax (a special tax on rental properties), capital gains tax, property tax, property management fees, maintenance fees and of course the mortgage... we got it to the point where we could just break even. And that's only because of the artificially low mortgage rates we can get.*
*There are, of course, other restrictions with this. You have to live in the property as your primary residence for at least 2 years before renting it, or you're required to refinance the mortgage. You can also only have one outstanding VA loan at a time, so no jumping from house to house every 2 years.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I saw a meme saying "Imagine the uproar if that lady in Kentucky refused to give someone a gun license."
Other than that, though, and something a lot of people who don't own guns don't realize: you don't need a license or anything to buy or own a gun. You just go and buy one. Some states make the store perform some sort of background check with a 3 day waiting period first, a handful (like mine) make you register the weapon with the police department after you purchase it, but AFAIK none of them require you to obtain a license first. (from what I understand, such a requirement would probably be considered unconstitutional)
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Yeah man, it was just a joke.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
The meme was a joke (trolling), the existence of the meme was a joke, or you were poking fun the meme?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Yeah
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I'm aware that a clerk doesn't issue gun licenses. I'm aware that you only need a license/permit for concealed carry. I'm also aware that this wouldn't be a 'religious freedom' issue. I just thought it was mildly amusing to imagine the same people defending her flipping out if she denied someone trying to buy a gun. It's not a realistic scenario and there's no political point behind it and it's not even pointing out hypocrisy. I just thought it was funny, though not really anymore Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
What is this "funny" you speak of, human? Where might one acquire it?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
There is a license you have to apply for.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Ah. All I've got so far is a concealed pun license.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I hear you're pretty quip on the draw with it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Get out.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Give me jest a few minutes?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I mean, the bar was set pretty high. .
.
.
.
A basketball player, a gorilla, and a priest just walked under it.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I was watching this and I'm wondering why it matters if someone considers themselves a feminist or not as long as they agree with the underlying beliefs. Who cares if they have an incorrect understanding of what the label is? Isn't believing that women deserve equal rights what matters? I sometimes see discussions on "equal pay for equal work" devolve into an argument about what feminism means (with one side preferring the moniker "feminazi"). Why not just ask "Do you believe that women deserve equal opportunities, equal pay for equal work, etc?"
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Well, it's because the "etc" is potentially long, so we need a label - a category to which we can refer, rather than describing it in full each time. And those who are opposed to the goals included in that category will learn to associate the label - whatever it is, even if we switched from feminist to "gender fairness" or something - with the associations they would have had to feminism.
So I don't blame people for trying to defend and demystify the label that already exists, instead of going to all the work of listing all of their beliefs and goals every time, or finding a new label which would also become contested semantic space.
I'm obviously ignoring various complications like differences in what various feminists believe/want/do. When it matters to narrow it down, I think narrowing it down and being explicit about beliefs or goals or methods is a good idea.
I'd be interested to know whether anybody who says feminazi will agree that equal pay for equal work is not only desirable, but also that we should collectively do something about it. I don't think I've ever seen that.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: Well, it's because the "etc" is potentially long, so we need a label - a category to which we can refer, rather than describing it in full each time. And those who are opposed to the goals included in that category will learn to associate the label - whatever it is, even if we switched from feminist to "gender fairness" or something - with the associations they would have had to feminism.
Would "Do you believe that women should have an equal place in society as men?" cover it?
quote: I'd be interested to know whether anybody who says feminazi will agree that equal pay for equal work is not only desirable, but also that we should collectively do something about it. I don't think I've ever seen that.
I have very limited experience in these discussions, mainly just passing through on the internet, but I mostly recall them at least trying to pretend they think women should be (or already are) treated equally, but that feminists want women to be treated better than men, or something.
Posted by Dale Power (Member # 13312) on :
Post removed by JB. AWESOME SPAM!
[ October 03, 2015, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
What is with the rush of spam. Was there a recent weakening of the registration process or something?
Reported.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: Every firearm Mercer had was legally obtained. This shows that background checks don't work, now do they? Here's a plan, everybody (even the people who don't want a firearm) over 18 needs to have the background check and when you pass, you are required to purchase a firearm, have the proper ammunition, take a safety class, have it on your person when you leave the house to get a gallon of milk, and no more gun free zones (they're turning out to be target ranges). Now, the crazies, the criminals, and ones wanting to make a statement (like Mercer) will know that they'll get less shots off due to the possibility that someone will drop them like a bad habit.
Big government ftw.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Umpqua Community College is not a gun-free zone. Oregon state law prohibits them in colleges and universities. They did require concealed carry permits, but there were people on campus during and after the shooting carrying legal weapons.
REALLY tired of talking heads blathering about this without getting challenged.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: If in case it was all too confusing for you, here's a summary:
President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) while some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)
So the Americans (who are good ) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good ) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.
There is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is good) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so the U.S. says they are bad while secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.
Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin (who is bad because he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks, including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi, has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing (!?).
But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).
Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons with which to bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad which is good, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.
Now the British (obviously good, except that silly anti-Semite who leads the Labor Party, Mr. Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good/bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (super bad -- see Paris, November 2015).
So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS and, because Putin and Iran are also fighting IS, that may now make them good. America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr. Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also good?) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only consistently bad).
To Sunni Muslims an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War. Therefore, the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as good (duh).
Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (might have a point?) and hence we will be seen as bad.
So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad ) many of whom are looking to IS (good/bad ) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (now, straining credulity, good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started.
Got it?
In case anyone isn't aware global politics are complex.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
(I imagine it being whispered in a deep, breathless-movie-announcer-voiceover. "the tuuurd whisperer *brief montage of CT looking dramatically comtemplative while reading a chart, maybe whipping off a pair of glasses*)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)