Meh. OK, whatever. That's not what was happening. You being an admin was incidental. I'm attempting to answer you - incidental admin - while leveraging a person who keeps asking me for sources without providing their own. I thought he'd trust you to receive information (again, being an admin) and then maybe put up his sources since he seems to think I'm blowing smoke. I even offered him to delete my account if I couldn't back up my statement.
In short, I've done everything I know to do to try and get the answers I've been asking for that he just keeps repeating ad nauseam is 'The Science' (as opposed to the science).
I thought a trusted source would elicit a response - if he had one. Calling a bluff if you will.
The offer wasn't for your sake. But I did hope it satisfied your curiosity at the same time.
So, I guess this is just me continuing to bloviate then...
Not really setting out to mock you, just saying that whatever back and forth you're having is kinda immaterial to me honestly... Was just looking for the info.
They exist in lieu of the government doing anything meaningful to support them. Because people have relied on religious charity to do what the government won't do since forever and somehow that's considered acceptable. That's a bit broader in scope than just adoption, but yeah...
So.... shit then. A distinction without a difference. Imagine chiming in to spend a significant amount of typing to essentially say 'I don't like the direction you're going - it's a waste of time (but mine isn't)'. Typical semantics game from the left.
I'm not surprised you don't see it as irrelevant. You also don't see it as particularly offensive. But, this is funny because *I* find your indifference about it (and yet not enough to continue long responses - OMG... leaning more and more towards walls of text! I guess you DO have something to say about the matter after all) to be an irrelevant tangent. So what if you don't like my thought-process and find it 'irrelevant'? As I said, very insightful - 10/10 would read again. A lefty thinks I'm wasting my time (believe me, I'm aware of the time-sink in responding here), OK, chap, same back at you. Are any of us better off with this exchange?
Only your argument was "you [are]... taking a vaccine talk into the territory of..." implying I co-opted something out of context to push a narrative. I didn't. My only narrative - at that time - was how gross the comment I quoted was. Period.
Yes, thanks for understanding. You pushed your narrative by using an irrelevant example (you can note how many times I used the word irrelevant by now) and I chose not to let that go. Simple as that.
Ah. As opposed to your repeated attempt to push a narrative that all this window dressing is really what's important in an effort to diminish the discussion about how disgusting the quote was. Which is what an apologist would do - knowingly or unknowingly.
Yet you are the one who chose to spin the discussion in this direction, something that you could have avoided, just like somebody else can choose to not laugh at horrible politician deaths.
Funny, when I read back it is not *I* who brought it up (but the quoted individual did in a string of defenses, ultimately settling on what we both knew was the case - 'why shouldn't I feel hate?'). I wanted to address the bed that had shit in it, and it was as if the author wanted to say "Hey, look out this window! Sometimes beds deserve to have shit in them, IDK *shrug*" instead. That included a diatribe about how deserving they all are because they bring it on themselves and others, which is not only debatable on its own merit but also debatable on the 'facts' used to underwrite the opinion.
As you can see, I'm more than happy after-the-fact to discuss vaccines and their abysmal failure, but my intent - which I am very aware of, not yourself, thanks - was to rub his nose in it (because I can). I can continue to do so while also addressing his distraction, and yours. Multitasking is fun, and we all have holidays off I presume.
Let's say I tacitly support racism (I do believe that's an argument often used by the left) by not only an absence of condemnation (silence is violence, as it were) but also a simultaneous defense of the ancillary about the root case (maybe a defense of an involved character, their history, some unrelated factoid, throwing it back on the victim, whatever). Maybe I say I have no sympathy for any black victims of police brutality simply by virtue of them being black (that's not the case just so we're clear). The argument I dance around involves saying things like they deserve it, by engaging in high-risk activities, thus bringing it on themselves. So, my conclusion is 'fuck em' - the whole lot of 'em. Even the ones I should be pitying and wish better for that are truly victims caught up in a bad system against their will. That callous nature isn't me *explicitly* acting as an apologist for a shitty mentality - I don't have to come out and say it. There's enough to read between the lines, no? It's either implied or perhaps even so deep-rooted as to be subconscious and I'm not even aware of how it comes across (also a claim I've seen levied by the left). Yes, there are 'conservatives' that actually feel this way. I do not qualify as either, though I see how anything remotely right of the extreme left all the time is seen as 'conservative'. In any event, not all conservatives think the same way any more than every liberal, though both sides like to only paint in black and white to their own detriment.
Side note, I'm sure IF I get a response someone will poo-poo my evoking of racism, because sacred cow. Instead (purposefully) missing the point I'm attempting to make by using your own language.
That's how I see things, continue to deny or disagree, it's not really moving my personal needle any of your attestations to the contrary. It just kind of solidifies my opinion about the, um, so-called 'tolerant left'. (buzzword alert!)
I suppose we're all working with some theory of confirmation bias whether we admit it or not, but I like to be surprised from time to time.
Like I also said, whether I offer my sympathy or not means nothing. No one is obliged to offer sympathy or get bound by intangible concepts with no effect on anybody. Just like nobody needs to respect the deceased. You don't have to respect the dead or the alive; you just need to know to act within your boundaries
The left is just chock-full of warm, delightful human beings, is it not? Sorry, I'm not a signatory to the cold 'pragmatism' (borderline if not outright nihilism, of which I'm sure you have a boilerplate, tired, passé defense of) of the left which prides itself on being so caring for the _________ (fill in the blank: poor, uneducated, victims of government malfeasance, workers, victims of corporate interests, etc etc). Whites, cis males, Christians (or most other theists, often Islamists get a pass though), straights, conservatives (though I repeat myself?) of course being instantly discounted. (although often a cross-section of the former list)
I'm certainly not telling you what to care for, I'm shining a light on your rather predictable absence of caring (some would even call it a charade of being a caring individual [when it is politically expedient more often than not]). It either moves you or it doesn't in doing so. For you personally, the later. I'm indifferent to that fact - no shocker here.
Yours is not an overreaction; it is a selective reaction, which contradicts pragmatic perspective (as you said, just as shit or not, it's my perspective).
Yes, I *selectively* took offense to something... intended to be offensive (a joke! just a joke!). My My. Yare Yare. I do realize there's nothing actually sacred on the left, other than sacred victimhood (often, if not exclusively, a false victimhood). So, it's no wonder a lefty is unmoved.
What you see as 'big mad' or a waste of time or irrelevant meandering I see as a central theme and fault in the political left. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and I could see why the left moves in unison to block the light by downplaying the heart of the matter. It's fascinating to watch, really.
No, I don't believe I ever had that impression after even our first interaction. I don't know you from Adam - you're just font to me. It's just interesting to see the instinctive response to defend shitty behavior - one-by-one entering the room with the shit in the bed to say there's no shit there and that smell doesn't exist, and you're just another name in a list of cosigners.
I'm here to be an observer same as you, in addition to the discussion of topics. It really is fascinating, watching the psychology play out in text. I play my part as well.
FWIW, I don't particularly *like* leftists - I've been clear about that from the start. Though I was once one, so I understand the perspective. I kept company that would be very similar to some of you. I find you smug, patronizing, and unyielding. Did I mention pretentious? Oh, I'm not at a loss for all the great descriptors, though I digress. Anyways, I didn't think I was that likable then either (and most to do with my political affiliation/cult-like mentality). I suppose some of you probably see yourself as affable, or maybe you don't care (bc pragmatic!), or maybe you think you straddle the line for both. All I can say is you probably keep great company among yourselves.
Anyways, if the above is how I come across to you, it's because I'm playing by your set of rules (it's a feature here, not a bug). If I seem condescending, that's because I am. It *is* kind of fun being a smug, pretentious douche is it not? (OMG, he's arguing in bad faith! /cop-out)
That said, I don't see you as 'enemies' in the traditional sense (sparing partners, sure). 'Unfortunate souls' (to use the vernacular of a theist, OMG OMG) perhaps. Often 'useful idiots' (not my term, but if the shoe fits...). (self-ascribed, faux) Victims for sure (because that's how you want to be seen), but not for the reason you claim. But I have no reason to revel in any of your deaths. If anything, it's unfortunate, no matter how much of a lost cause some of you seem to be (I was pretty terminal, but came around...).
And, yes, I'm completely aware of how incredibly douchey/condescending/smug/whathaveyou all this sounds. You can point that out or try to understand what I'm actually trying to communicate to you. (I'm sure you don't really care, and this is just an exercise in futility, but I'm feeling generous with my time with you, clearly)
Not really setting out to mock you, just saying that whatever back and forth you're having is kinda immaterial to me honestly... Was just looking for the info.
Sure, I understand. I'll PM you and you can do with that what you will. I *am* invested in that 'back and forth' at this point though, so no intention of public disclosure in the event I can force out some good sources nuggies from M3J, of which you have no dog in the fight which I get. I was attempting a win-win-win solution, but nvm.
Mock away though, no hurt feelings here. It just makes it that much more fun when I do come through. I believe it excites the individual I've called out for sources more.
They exist in lieu of the government doing anything meaningful to support them. Because people have relied on religious charity to do what the government won't do since forever and somehow that's considered acceptable. That's a bit broader in scope than just adoption, but yeah...
Does this not bring up rather obvious points of discussion then?
- why don't the leftist goverments, in charge of purse strings repeatedly having super-majorities, do something about it? You could ask the same of the right, but since their base IS the very ones doing the charitable work (mostly, in this regard, per you two), maybe they're relying on that fact instead. Rather, I know they are because capitalist adherents love to point out that more charity is done by the right (the right being more defensive of capitalism - a distinction from corporatism and crony capitalism, but that's another discussion). I wonder if that has something to do with a belief system versus an absence of one...? (though I'd argue scientism is also a belief system)
- why aren't there more secular (from religion OR government), civilian adoption agencies...? What is stopping your(?) side, with the apparent superior moral framework I keep hearing about? Could there be something to do with the difference in the will to be charitable between theists and secularists? And if so, why (or why not)?
- honest question - are there any laws/red tape that prevent the creation of the gayest of adoption agencies to bridge that gap that is such an affront to you - less homosexuals being able to be adopted? If there's a need, a business can exist (or non-profit) to service it, so what gives? I really don't know much about the hurdles in this regard... if they really exist, enlighten me.
In short, why aren't more gays/leftists/big government (though I repeat myself?) stepping up, and why is this a function of private, generally Christian organizations and charity to solve? It seems rather consistent to me to be generally against abortion while generally the only ones providing adoption services. Seems to kind of torpedo the argument that self-serving Christians are working against themselves by forcing those damned, clump-o-cell abominations to be born, to just in turn attempt to house the unwanted. Curious.
Oh, and what's wrong with private organizations deciding how they see fit to vet parents? I'll take the libertarian position here for the sake of argument, but from a purely practical sense ANY adoption - even if not to gay parents - is better than NO adoption. Right?
Welp, sure? Though it's weird to compare the entirely imaginary pedo rings the US right wing hallucinates about to real sex trafficking. It's fair to point out that these lunatics get in the way of actually combating sex trafficking via diverting time, attention and resources to silly nonsense.
Yeah, that was my point is all. Just pointing out another bout of hypocrisy. You know. Claiming to want to protect children while exacerbating the problems they face. That's all.
So.... shit then. A distinction without a difference. Imagine chiming in to spend a significant amount of typing to essentially say 'I don't like the direction you're going - it's a waste of time (but mine isn't)'. Typical semantics game from the left.
I'm not surprised you don't see it as irrelevant. You also don't see it as particularly offensive. But, this is funny because *I* find your indifference about it (and yet not enough to continue long responses - OMG... leaning more and more towards walls of text! I guess you DO have something to say about the matter after all) to be an irrelevant tangent. So what if you don't like my thought-process and find it 'irrelevant'? As I said, very insightful - 10/10 would read again. A lefty thinks I'm wasting my time (believe me, I'm aware of the time-sink in responding here), OK, chap, same back at you. Are any of us better off with this exchange?
Only your argument was "you [are]... taking a vaccine talk into the territory of..." implying I co-opted something out of context to push a narrative. I didn't. My only narrative - at that time - was how gross the comment I quoted was. Period.
Okay, so, you made a standalone point of example regarding the vaccine without actually intending to shape up a narrative around the said example? Then your example was as relevant as shouting "Nazis were bad people" in the middle of a conversation.
Ah. As opposed to your repeated attempt to push a narrative that all this window dressing is really what's important in an effort to diminish the discussion about how disgusting the quote was. Which is what an apologist would do - knowingly or unknowingly.
I don't need to spend effort toprove something like that. There isn't anything particularly constructive on condemning people about arbitrary concepts for me. But if you want to crucify them, go ahead. You have the right to do so, and I have the right to think this is pointless.
Funny, when I read back it is not *I* who brought it up (but the quoted individual did in a string of defenses, ultimately settling on what we both knew was the case - 'why shouldn't I feel hate?'). I wanted to address the bed that had shit in it, and it was as if the author wanted to say "Hey, look out this window! Sometimes beds deserve to have shit in them, IDK *shrug*" instead. That included a diatribe about how deserving they all are because they bring it on themselves and others, which is not only debatable on its own merit but also debatable on the 'facts' used to underwrite the opinion.
As you can see, I'm more than happy after-the-fact to discuss vaccines and their abysmal failure, but my intent - which I am very aware of, not yourself, thanks - was to rub his nose in it (because I can). I can continue to do so while also addressing his distraction, and yours. Multitasking is fun, and we all have holidays off I presume.
Let's say I tacitly support racism (I do believe that's an argument often used by the left) by not only an absence of condemnation (silence is violence, as it were) but also a simultaneous defense of the ancillary about the root case (maybe a defense of an involved character, their history, some unrelated factoid, throwing it back on the victim, whatever). Maybe I say I have no sympathy for any black victims of police brutality simply by virtue of them being black (that's not the case just so we're clear). The argument I dance around involves saying things like they deserve it, by engaging in high-risk activities, thus bringing it on themselves. So, my conclusion is 'fuck em' - the whole lot of 'em. Even the ones I should be pitying and wish better for that are truly victims caught up in a bad system against their will. That callous nature isn't me *explicitly* acting as an apologist for a shitty mentality - I don't have to come out and say it. There's enough to read between the lines, no? It's either implied or perhaps even so deep-rooted as to be subconscious and I'm not even aware of how it comes across (also a claim I've seen levied by the left). Yes, there are 'conservatives' that actually feel this way. I do not qualify as either, though I see how anything remotely right of the extreme left all the time is seen as 'conservative'. In any event, not all conservatives think the same way any more than every liberal, though both sides like to only paint in black and white to their own detriment.
Side note, I'm sure IF I get a response someone will poo-poo my evoking of racism, because sacred cow. Instead (purposefully) missing the point I'm attempting to make by using your own language.
That's how I see things, continue to deny or disagree, it's not really moving my personal needle any of your attestations to the contrary. It just kind of solidifies my opinion about the, um, so-called 'tolerant left'. (buzzword alert!)
I suppose we're all working with some theory of confirmation bias whether we admit it or not, but I like to be surprised from time to time.
In this hypothetical, if you have reductionist conclusions and simply don't offer sympathy as part of your racism, this makes you a shitty person with no sympathy. As long as you are not involved in racism in a tangible way, who on earth cares? Most certainly not me. Maybe some divine power will judge your or you will get bad karma from universe, just as you would when you hope some right guy dies a horrible death.
The left is just chock-full of warm, delightful human beings, is it not? Sorry, I'm not a signatory to the cold 'pragmatism' (borderline if not outright nihilism, of which I'm sure you have a boilerplate, tired, passé defense of) of the left which prides itself on being so caring for the _________ (fill in the blank: poor, uneducated, victims of government malfeasance, workers, victims of corporate interests, etc etc). Whites, cis males, Christians (or most other theists, often Islamists get a pass though), straights, conservatives (though I repeat myself?) of course being instantly discounted. (although often a cross-section of the former list)
I'm certainly not telling you what to care for, I'm shining a light on your rather predictable absence of caring (some would even call it a charade of being a caring individual [when it is politically expedient more often than not]). It either moves you or it doesn't in doing so. For you personally, the later. I'm indifferent to that fact - no shocker here.
I'm not "the left", so I can't speak on behalf of their practices.
On the those-who-have-held-power-for-centuries not getting an a benevolent kiss on the cheek from the left, again, as not a part of the left, I can't speak for them, but I'd understand why.
Yes, I *selectively* took offense to something... intended to be offensive (a joke! just a joke!). My My. Yare Yare. I do realize there's nothing actually sacred on the left, other than sacred victimhood (often, if not exclusively, a false victimhood). So, it's no wonder a lefty is unmoved.
What you see as 'big mad' or a waste of time or irrelevant meandering I see as a central theme and fault in the political left. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and I could see why the left moves in unison to block the light by downplaying the heart of the matter. It's fascinating to watch, really.
I don't see how this is an integral fault in the heart of the left machinery. Maybe it somehow ties to their political success achieved and that's what you mean. Otherwise, yeah, it's missing the mark.
I'm here to be an observer same as you, in addition to the discussion of topics. It really is fascinating, watching the psychology play out in text. I play my part as well.
FWIW, I don't particularly *like* leftists - I've been clear about that from the start. Though I was once one, so I understand the perspective. I kept company that would be very similar to some of you. I find you smug, patronizing, and unyielding. Did I mention pretentious? Oh, I'm not at a loss for all the great descriptors, though I digress. Anyways, I didn't think I was that likable then either (and most to do with my political affiliation/cult-like mentality). I suppose some of you probably see yourself as affable, or maybe you don't care (bc pragmatic!), or maybe you think you straddle the line for both. All I can say is you probably keep great company among yourselves.
Anyways, if the above is how I come across to you, it's because I'm playing by your set of rules (it's a feature here, not a bug). If I seem condescending, that's because I am. It *is* kind of fun being a smug, pretentious douche is it not? (OMG, he's arguing in bad faith! /cop-out)
That said, I don't see you as 'enemies' in the traditional sense (sparing partners, sure). 'Unfortunate souls' (to use the vernacular of a theist, OMG OMG) perhaps. Often 'useful idiots' (not my term, but if the shoe fits...). (self-ascribed, faux) Victims for sure (because that's how you want to be seen), but not for the reason you claim. But I have no reason to revel in any of your deaths. If anything, it's unfortunate, no matter how much of a lost cause some of you seem to be (I was pretty terminal, but came around...).
And, yes, I'm completely aware of how incredibly douchey/condescending/smug/whathaveyou all this sounds. You can point that out or try to understand what I'm actually trying to communicate to you. (I'm sure you don't really care, and this is just an exercise in futility, but I'm feeling generous with my time with you, clearly)
I don't have such a reaason, either, but if anything, I don't see a moral high ground to have on that topic. I suppose that's the difference we have here.
I do try to understand people, when I spend time on something, so the feeling is mutual.
Welp, the two are connected. It's because of their believe in abortion that they can delude themselves into believing these pedophilia rings exist. Since they are from the get go coldblooded murderers.
Meh. OK, whatever. That's not what was happening. You being an admin was incidental. I'm attempting to answer you - incidental admin - while leveraging a person who keeps asking me for sources without providing their own. I thought he'd trust you to receive information (again, being an admin) and then maybe put up his sources since he seems to think I'm blowing smoke. I even offered him to delete my account if I couldn't back up my statement.
For the record, you're the one who keeps whining about me providing "scientific" sources, when when I do provide sources, you don't bother to acknowledge them or take them seriously. I know there's a good chance your sources are likely full of shit, especially since you keep dodging, whereas I outright stated that I don't take you seriously enough to spend time finding sources, and you just keep proving that correct.
If I remember correctly, you kept pressing me for sources even when I wasn't replying to you. Why would I trust the sources xi0 shares if the sources are from you, and he doesn't bother to prune but just post?
I don't remember that but it's probably a post I skipped.
I come from a JNCO-wearing generation (alternating with ska and crust-punk garb), back when PETA used to circulate shit on VHS. Before being vegan was cool even.
Not sure why I'd lie about that of all things though - it's not like I wear it like a badge of honor, but a time when present me laughs at past me. Kind of like I do for you now.
If I remember correctly, you kept pressing me for sources even when I wasn't replying to you. Why would I trust the sources xi0 shares if the sources are from you, and he doesn't bother to prune but just post?
Yes, people ask for sources when people make claims. I guess I thought xi0 would be a trusted source - it's not like he's affiliated with my politics from the little I've seen.
For the record, you're the one who keeps whining about me providing "scientific" sources, when when I do provide sources, you don't bother to acknowledge them or take them seriously. I know there's a good chance your sources are likely full of shit, especially since you keep dodging, whereas I outright stated that I don't take you seriously enough to spend time finding sources, and you just keep proving that correc
The ONLY source I've seen is 8 articles on the exact same topic/story - which reads like political theater and not so much scientifically-minded approach. For instance, the NPR article (totes not a liberal source lol) CLAIMS it adjust for age - the PRIMARY determinant in covid risk (a point *I* make, not the article). However, when I scroll down to the methodology section I don't see a single mention of how the so-called study adjust for age, or even a reference to that being done.
Red counties have a higher majority of republican voters.
Republican votes tend to be older than D voters (another reason for their die-off, be pleased!). Source:
"Based on those figures, the average Republican voter was about 7.6 years older than the average Democratic voter in 2020 and about 5.6 years older in 2018."
I don't see age-adjusted figures in that article. Anywhere. There should be at least 2 sets of figures - one before and one after adjusting for age - or at least an explanation that they did or how so.
Or even any account for anything else health or behavioral related. Are R voters more likely to congregate (church, family gatherings, whateverthefuck)? Work blue-collar jobs (or work at all, hehe) in close proximity to others? Are they less educated (boy, that one is a sticky subject no matter how you address it)? Are they more overweight?
More importantly, does this phenom show the same in low-risk categories, such as below 50? Why is there not an age breakdown, perhaps the most important bit of information? It's possible that the oldest, sickest Republicans are affected more - possibly even due to vaccine hesitancy I admit - perhaps being the operative word though, certainly not conclusive. I'm not opposed to vaccines, even the novel and untested ones, for the risk-prone population. There is such a thing as risk-stratification after all (a very important, missing piece of the discussion). In the lowest ages covid is actually less of a threat than influenza, yet we're being told we need to vaccinate the youth younger and younger. That is actually ANTI-science, but I digress.
Most populations have the majority of seniors vaccinated, but to varying degrees.
This analysis looks at the relationship between vaccination rates and COVID-19 deaths for adults 65 and older since the Delta variant took hold, and finds that states with lower vaccination rates among adults ages 65 and older had higher death rates among older adults during this period.
www.kff.org
Shows a clear correlation to higher deaths - IN SENIORS - and lower vax rates. I agree that is a problem (for them). I've never once been against vaccines for the high-risk. Could this be a R 'problem'? Perhaps, but it doesn't play out for those in the low to near-zero risk portions of the population; namely my own. And yours too, by extension.
Although, vaccines are for *individuals*. If anything, they played the risk-reward gamble and more R's than D's lost. I know you'll certainly cry for the loss. In any event, what people do as individuals with their own health doesn't concern me much, actually not at all (I suppose I have higher rates to pay...). My gripe has always been about mandates being applied universally, but lack of efficacy over time and adverse reactions are on my radar as well. This isn't a simple topic of discussion.
I don't see anything much about your typical farm-boy redneck in a red state/county dying off due to lack of covid shots, and that's the age group of my concern (for good reason).
Certainly, no one scientifically-minded decides a political message is in order - that one can state with certainty this is a clean-cut case of vaccine hesitancy (as opposed to age demographics or behavior).
***I warned you about snapshots in time, and correlation vs causation in advance***
Should I say with certainty this means lockdowns aren't functional? I'd say it adds credence to the idea, but it's difficult making claims of *certainty* and particularly stating causation sources as a fact from such a headline.
The takeaway? Can't be explained. This pretty much sums it up:
""Comparing snapshots in time across different places and trying to correlate with specific measures like vaccination rates or mask use is fruitless. People on both sides of the COVID aisle seem to love these 'gotcha' moments comparing current cases in different locations, but it's usually misleading or just wrong.""
I'm not citing some right-wing source, Newsweek.
There are certainly many moving parts, and how the virus moves through populations, seasonality, age demos, etc etc etc all play a role.
Only apples should be compared to apples.
That's why I read the articles you sent with a grain of salt - none of which are scientifically-based, but instead selectively-edited news sources. It does a poor job of explaining the complete picture. And in a vacuum it is indeterminate in the takeaway. That's simply not how correlation or science or empiricism works.
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" - learn this quote well.
==============================
And then there's the article about S. Africa, which I very much responded to, with added context. Which I haven't seen you address.
There. I responded to ALL your sources. I hardly dismissed them, but ask for more context which is lacking. Now, can you post the sources for the claims you made prior, that chronologically I've been asking for before you asked for a source from myself? Thus should be provided PRIOR to the sources you subsequently asked for?
Welp, to be fair this is more like, my opinion man. But the fact is that absurd pedophile conspiracy theories have become mainstream in the republican party. To me the most reasonable explanation regarding why so many people are willing to actually believe so many people are satanic pedophile cannibals is that they already believed these people were satanic baby murderers (as in being your average pro choicer). From there adding pedophile cannibals to the thing is a pretty small jump.
Don't answer my previous prompt. Because 'jokes' are cool here:
Actually, I'll do some heavy-lifting for you, since liberalism/wokism has ruined my movie-going experience.
I remember a time when one could to go a theater, sans mask ofc, and watch an actually-good Matrix movie (probably because they were still directed by actual men back then ), and hear a song at the time accepted as bad-ass during the credit roll, not some shitty cover used simply because it's made by a woman this time (that's such a great human being pushing avant-garde garbage she apparently thinks it is an expression of art to piss in the mouth of a concertgoer while 'performing').
With try-hard, meta-humor that falls flat. You'll be happy to know practically every white male was a blubbering inept mess, Neo included (as well as the big bad, ofc). What they did to the Merivingian or however the fuck you say it is an embarrassment, so you can be certain that was by design. Some 'good' feminist one-liners, and predictable she-woman protag reveals. Most of the fight scenes seemed amateurish, which is sad 2 decades after the groundbreaking series ended, with even more CGI advancements. Budgeting issues? The plot was a little played out and predictable - almost a like a reboot that won't admit it just reskinned the first movie in the franchise. Think: Ghostbusters 2016 or The Force Awakens. Bleh.
Silver-lining: anything with Machine City.
I think I've covered everything here: selfishness, covidiocy, bigotry, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, chauvinism, hmmm... let me know if I missed one*,**.
Maybe Islamophobia... I think one of the actors had a ME-sounding name? (just checked, and yes, Muslim upbringing) The new Morpheus I believe. He was... just okay. Tried a little too hard; definitely not the best Morpheus (best Morpheus is a Sandman version, but I digress again). At times I wasn't sure if his mannerisms were supposed to be 'gay' or not to be sure to check that box. It was a odd kind of flamboyance, but not quite gay enough. NPH *did* however check that box, but you wouldn't know it by his performance alone if you didn't know him as an actor. Newcomer 'Bugs' certainly has the LOOK down, but I just checked and I'm sad to report she is NOT a lesbian - actually straight! Sorry. BUT! Newcomer 'Lexy' (Hispanix no less!) did have some big-energy butch vibes going, and she's at least a little gay - only bi. Wah wah. Both of the later two were actually quite attractive when out of the Matrix and on the ship; inside the Matrix too cartoonish to be taken seriously.
I researched further, not to discount what I just knew HAD to be true... it took to the *bottom* of the barrel wiki Cast list to find out that the actor playing newcomer 'Berg' (blink and you'll miss him) who is an actor and also an out gay man (NPH is old news). Whew. It wasn't easy, but there it is. Tokenism is alive and well. Side note: apparently the Sense8 leftovers were all used in this movie, which I didn't realize until reading the wiki. That's actually kind of cool, but I can't admit that here, being a bigot and all. Good thing I didn't type that.
* disregard antisemitism; I know the left doesn't really care about that/Izzy
** racism missing; the cast was already very diverse back in the day (and no one had a complaint about that then either), unlike now with diversity for diversity's sake, awkwardly shoe-horned in. It was hard to be even more diverse than previous installments which were just fine.
Oh, and there's a scene where 'what the Matrix represents to people' is being discussed, and that looks exactly what I'd expect discussions in any tech startup meeting replete with coolaid-hair big brains to look like. I'm not sure if that was an attempt at self-deprecating humor or not.
There ya go, you're welcome. I'll be here all week; try the specials. Look for further movie reviews by the resident bigoted straight(?... with closeted undertones) __?__ male in the future.
I come from a JNCO-wearing generation (alternating with ska and crust-punk garb), back when PETA used to circulate shit on VHS. Before being vegan was cool even.
Not sure why I'd lie about that of all things though - it's not like I wear it like a badge of honor, but a time when present me laughs at past me. Kind of like I do for you now.
Nah, you're way too ignorant and know way too little about how the left mostly think to really have been a left winger. Or you thought you were a left winger but you were actually centrist or moderate. I mean, the right for some reason think Biden is left or communist or whatever, despite the fact that he disagrees with the left openly.
Yes, people ask for sources when people make claims. I guess I thought xi0 would be a trusted source - it's not like he's affiliated with my politics from the little I've seen.
The ONLY source I've seen is 8 articles on the exact same topic/story - which reads like political theater and not so much scientifically-minded approach. For instance, the NPR article (totes not a liberal source lol) CLAIMS it adjust for age - the PRIMARY determinant in covid risk (a point *I* make, not the article). However, when I scroll down to the methodology section I don't see a single mention of how the so-called study adjust for age, or even a reference to that being done.
I don't see age-adjusted figures in that article. Anywhere. There should be at least 2 sets of figures - one before and one after adjusting for age - or at least an explanation that they did or how so.
Shows a clear correlation to higher deaths - IN SENIORS - and lower vax rates. I agree that is a problem (for them). I've never once been against vaccines for the high-risk. Could this be a R 'problem'? Perhaps, but it doesn't play out for those in the low to near-zero risk portions of the population; namely my own. And yours too, by extension.
How many republican seniors have died compared to democrat seniors?
And it is a republican problem when majority of republican voters are against masks and/or vaccination, even though the political figures themselves got vaxxed as soon as they could.
Why did republican pundits keep pointing out covid affecting more of them than democrats, then?
"While Florida, and Texas to a lesser extent, experienced high case rates during the Delta wave, in California it has been flatter," he said. "So, although current rates in Florida and Texas are marginally lower than California, they are coming down from much higher levels."
Indeed, natural immunity is something put forward by Kao. He pointed out that Florida, with its total of around 3.6 million COVID cases and a population of 21 million, has a higher amount of cases per population than California, with 5 million total cases amongst a population of 40 million.
"And again, it also depends on when people got infected. Florida [has] many more cases relatively speaking recently, so therefore more protective immunity."
Straight from your link. One theory is that more Floridians and Texans have gotten covid, so they're not likely to catch it again so quickly, whereas more Californians did not get covid and since vaccines don't make one 100% immune, they can still get it.
Things you say about the left and the way you say it. Or you're not good at understanding others' point of view.
Nah, even I know liberals and progressives can be selfish/bigoted, but majority are not on the same level as the right. Although, I'm annoyed with liberals who oppose cancelling student loans just because they paid it off and think it's unfair they don't get anything while those who are still paying it off get relief.
There are also many progressive men who are misogynistic as well, for example. Maybe not as bad as the right, but that doesn't excuse them.
Welp, to be fair this is more like, my opinion man. But the fact is that absurd pedophile conspiracy theories have become mainstream in the republican party. To me the most reasonable explanation regarding why so many people are willing to actually believe so many people are satanic pedophile cannibals is that they already believed these people were satanic baby murderers (as in being your average pro choicer). From there adding pedophile cannibals to the thing is a pretty small jump.
They do care about antisemitism and most oppose it. Can't say the same for the right though, especially given the history of antisemitism amongst the right in USA and Europe. The main argument that the right and even liberals have is that it's anti-Semitic to oppose zionism, but that's silly because Zionism is not related to Judaism, otherwise should anti-Zionist Jewish people be considered anti-Semitic as well?
You can project on the left if you want though, if that makes you feel better.
Whether we do or not, I don't align with a lot of your takes because they're too reductionist for my tastes and you have the deftness of a baby elephant.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
No offense, your heart is usually in the right place
Whether we do or not, I don't align with a lot of your takes because they're too reductionist for my tastes and you have the deftness of a baby elephant.
Whether we do or not, I don't align with a lot of your takes because they're too reductionist for my tastes and you have the deftness of a baby elephant.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
No offense, your heart is usually in the right place
I mean, I started getting into arguments before I knew anything about politics just because I thought stricter gun control was a good idea or that cops need to stop killing Black people (and people in general), so I guess some of that stayed?
That and because I'm burned out on arguing more in depth. I do not have the attention span for it anymore, and that's probably why my ability to comprehend English has deteriorated so much.
Seeing Jubei's first replies to us, especially to me, was all I needed to know that there was no point in being civil or responding to a lot of his posts. And then the way he kept making us out to be bad while being condescending and rude... and ignoring the fact that republican politicians were letting their people die, and republican voters were refusing to protect others and were okay with old people dying....
Advising? Are you a psychiatrist or neuroscientist?
I have plenty of experience with both SSRIs and antidepressants as well as both their short and long-term side effects. It had no bearing on my decision to be vaccinated. I think comparing two things which have completely different mechanisms of action, especially one that does what it does via altering brain chemistry, is kind of strange and doesn't necessarily illustrate the point you think it does.
Oh, I'm sure it's funny/clever to someone... I'm just curious as to how that happened given the subject matter.
Advising? Are you a psychiatrist or neuroscientist?
I have plenty of experience with both SSRIs and antidepressants as well as both their short and long-term side effects. It had no bearing on my decision to be vaccinated. I think comparing two things which have completely different mechanisms of action, especially one that does what it does via altering brain chemistry, is kind of strange and doesn't necessarily illustrate the point you think it does.
Psychiatrists and neuroscientists said "no evidence of human to human transmission of corona virus" in early 2020.
During a time when people with no medical degree said they should assume the worst case scenario and respond accordingly to prevent it from entering the united states.
I don't understand why anyone who supports COVID vaccines would try to debate the topic. Anyone with a decent memory who paid attention to the developing crisis would easily be able to refute virtually any point vaccine supporters tried to make.
), and hear a song at the time accepted as bad-ass during the credit roll, not some shitty cover used simply because it's made by a woman this time (that's such a great human being pushing avant-garde garbage she apparently thinks it is an expression of art to piss in the mouth of a concertgoer while 'performing').
