Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On October 16 2024 02:14 NewSunshine wrote: Yeah, I don't know why Fauci giving advice to prioritize who got masks is supposed to be some damning revelation. Like, yeah, prioritize the professionals who come in contact with and who help the most people, especially in a time when the supply of masks was not universal. Seems pretty basic to me?
But he downplayed their effectiveness with that ultimate aim in mind, which does bring all sorts of other problems.
Perhaps it was the best of a bad bunch of options, I think that’s a fair argument. Equally I think BJ is also on the money where you erode trust if you’re caught in a white lie, and I think we saw that.
It also doesn’t help that people can be fucking idiots either, but you have to factor that in I suppose.
Sure, as someone who thinks themself reasonably intelligent, I would rather know straight-up: we need to prioritize masks based on availability for medical personnel, until availability is more widespread. I can understand that. But, like you said, when they're trying to message to a much, um, shall I say broader audience, you need to tell them in words that will get them on board with what you're trying to do. And if you just tell people that you want medical personnel to have priority, you're still going to have tons of people going "hmm, I hear that, but I can still get mine" and proceeding to do their part to fuck things up in the short term anyway.
But at the end of the day, he's human, we're all human, we make mistakes, but he was our preeminent medical authority making a call in the interest of public health, during a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic. Who the fuck wanted that job? So you caught a white lie that he told, sure, let's look at it in the broader context. The broader context was that he was looking to limit the spread of the virus and save lives. This isn't something to gotcha him over, we all made our choices in an unprecedented situation. There wasn't some conspiracy afoot.
I fully agree. Replaying the situation, I don't see a 'better choice' to be made. However, there is OBVIOUS harm caused in a general sense among this 'broader audience' who I in no way expect to see being lied to as reasonable and retroactively justified.
The erosion of trust is the harm, not the direct results of the lie itself. I would readily believe that the lie itself was productive and successful.
But did these people trust the government and lose that trust by this action, or were they already distrustful and merely looking for a reinforcement of that distrust?
Would you consider that meaningfully different in regards to eroding trust?
I think skepticism of pretty much anything is healthy. You probably shouldn't trust your government fully regardless of what country you live in. I don't think you'd find too many instances of people who trusted the government 100%, but then Fauci caused them to trust the government 0%. I also think there certainly would be people who trusted the government 0% who just felt vindicated by the admission of lies. In both of those cases, I'm more concerned for the reasonable people between those points, who are now understandably less likely to trust information provided by authorities because authorities have shown that control is more important than truth in some cases.
On October 16 2024 08:48 BlackJack wrote: What about my post are you not understanding? Why do you feel entitled to openly opine on what policies the healthcare experts propose are unintelligent but when Joe Rogan does it it's "spreading dangerous misinformation." I'm sure you have a mountain of evidence that shows mask mandates increase the spread of COVID. That last part is sarcasm.
What part is it YOU are not understanding? I explained in detail why a mandate can backfire. It's right there in the quotes your posted. Read them a few times in great detail and try to actually understand what it is that I was saying. I'm sure you can figure it out by yourself, you are intelligent enough. I have explained my reasoning many times before, when we discussed the pandemic a hundred and more times. I'm done discussing it with you. I ask from you that you don't resort to the waybackmachine to get back at me from a discussion you're still unhappy about years later. This is not personal, so don't make it personal. If you can't figure out my years old argument regarding the mask mandates, you can DM me the very specific difficulty you have with it. Anything you don't understand I'll gladly explain to you as long as you prove to me that you're willing to put in the effort to actually, truly understand it. With good faith and all. My DMs are open.
On October 16 2024 08:48 BlackJack wrote: What about my post are you not understanding? Why do you feel entitled to openly opine on what policies the healthcare experts propose are unintelligent but when Joe Rogan does it it's "spreading dangerous misinformation." I'm sure you have a mountain of evidence that shows mask mandates increase the spread of COVID. That last part is sarcasm.
What part is it YOU are not understanding? I explained in detail why a mandate can backfire. It's right there in the quotes your posted. Read them a few times in great detail and try to actually understand what it is that I was saying. I'm sure you can figure it out by yourself, you are intelligent enough. I have explained my reasoning many times before, when we discussed the pandemic a hundred and more times. I'm done discussing it with you. I ask from you that you don't resort to the waybackmachine to get back at me from a discussion you're still unhappy about years later. This is not personal, so don't make it personal. If you can't figure out my years old argument regarding the mask mandates, you can DM me the very specific difficulty you have with it. Anything you don't understand I'll gladly explain to you as long as you prove to me that you're willing to put in the effort to actually, truly understand it. With good faith and all. My DMs are open.
Why do you think I don’t understand your super simple argument? I’m not sure how having a reason for pushing a narrative that is counter to the healthcare experts absolves you. Do you think Joe Rogan doesn’t have reasons and arguments for pushing the things he believes? Just more hypocrisy here. Your reasoning for your beliefs is valid but Joe Rogan’s aren’t.
On October 16 2024 08:48 BlackJack wrote: What about my post are you not understanding? Why do you feel entitled to openly opine on what policies the healthcare experts propose are unintelligent but when Joe Rogan does it it's "spreading dangerous misinformation." I'm sure you have a mountain of evidence that shows mask mandates increase the spread of COVID. That last part is sarcasm.
What part is it YOU are not understanding? I explained in detail why a mandate can backfire. It's right there in the quotes your posted. Read them a few times in great detail and try to actually understand what it is that I was saying. I'm sure you can figure it out by yourself, you are intelligent enough. I have explained my reasoning many times before, when we discussed the pandemic a hundred and more times. I'm done discussing it with you. I ask from you that you don't resort to the waybackmachine to get back at me from a discussion you're still unhappy about years later. This is not personal, so don't make it personal. If you can't figure out my years old argument regarding the mask mandates, you can DM me the very specific difficulty you have with it. Anything you don't understand I'll gladly explain to you as long as you prove to me that you're willing to put in the effort to actually, truly understand it. With good faith and all. My DMs are open.
Why do you think I don’t understand your super simple argument? I’m not sure how having a reason for pushing a narrative that is counter to the healthcare experts absolves you. Do you think Joe Rogan doesn’t have reasons and arguments for pushing the things he believes? Just more hypocrisy here. Your reasoning for your beliefs is valid but Joe Rogan’s aren’t.
DM me or give up. I won't engage with this nonsense anymore, we've discussed this too many times. I expect good faith and 100% effort to understand what I say or the discussion is over.
On October 16 2024 17:29 EnDeR_ wrote: DPB, I appreciate your efforts to getting the thread back on track
For those of us with less time on our hands, could you give us a sense of what was discussed in the videos to see if they're worth watching?
I'm trying lol. The Howard Stern and Jimmy Kimmel conversations are very friendly and casual - no one would suggest that the hosts are asking hard-hitting journalism questions - but they do such a wonderful job of showing how relatable Harris and Walz are. You'll see sincerity and joy and humor and empathy and normal human qualities that are severely lacking on the Trump/Vance side. Harris already runs circles around Trump when it comes to the presidential issues, and the previous two videos do a great job of complementing the political side by bringing out the heartfelt anecdotes and backstories and context of who Harris and Walz are and where they came from.
On October 16 2024 17:29 EnDeR_ wrote: DPB, I appreciate your efforts to getting the thread back on track
For those of us with less time on our hands, could you give us a sense of what was discussed in the videos to see if they're worth watching?
I'm trying lol. The Howard Stern and Jimmy Kimmel conversations are very friendly and casual - no one would suggest that the hosts are asking hard-hitting journalism questions - but they do such a wonderful job of showing how relatable Harris and Walz are. You'll see sincerity and joy and humor and empathy and normal human qualities that are severely lacking on the Trump/Vance side. Harris already runs circles around Trump when it comes to the presidential issues, and the previous two videos do a great job of complementing the political side by bringing out the heartfelt anecdotes and backstories and context of who Harris and Walz are and where they came from.
If you drew a face on a plank of wood then it would be more relatable than Trump.
On October 16 2024 17:29 EnDeR_ wrote: DPB, I appreciate your efforts to getting the thread back on track
For those of us with less time on our hands, could you give us a sense of what was discussed in the videos to see if they're worth watching?
I'm trying lol. The Howard Stern and Jimmy Kimmel conversations are very friendly and casual - no one would suggest that the hosts are asking hard-hitting journalism questions - but they do such a wonderful job of showing how relatable Harris and Walz are. You'll see sincerity and joy and humor and empathy and normal human qualities that are severely lacking on the Trump/Vance side. Harris already runs circles around Trump when it comes to the presidential issues, and the previous two videos do a great job of complementing the political side by bringing out the heartfelt anecdotes and backstories and context of who Harris and Walz are and where they came from.
If you drew a face on a plank of wood then it would be more relatable than Trump.
This was written in the beginning of 2024... Surely thousands more rape-pregnancies have occurred since then x.x
1/24/24 - More than 26K rape-related pregnancies are estimated after Texas outlawed abortions. Texas abortion laws do not offer exceptions for rape or incest.
Texas saw an estimated 26,313 rape-related pregnancies during the 16 months after the state outlawed all abortions, with no exceptions for survivors of rape or incest, according to a study published Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
That’s the highest estimate among the 14 states with total abortion bans, with Texas having the largest population, according to the study. The figure helps put the magnitude of the state’s laws into perspective, especially for those who can’t access abortion pills or travel out of state to receive abortion care, said one of the authors, Dr. Kari White of the Texas-based Resound Research for Reproductive Health. ... Behind Texas, the states with the highest totals were Missouri (5,825), Tennessee (4,990), Arkansas (4,660), Oklahoma (4,530), Louisiana (4,290) and Alabama (4,130).
Researchers at Harvard Medical School and the University of California, San Francisco, also carried out the study. They relied on several different sources for their analysis, including survey and crime report data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
On October 16 2024 19:31 Liquid`Drone wrote: Probably means it wasn't a legitimate rape, considering how if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down.
It's crazy how Donald Trump’s daily rants are pretty much equivalent to writing something as stupid as Todd Akin's infamous, offensive, and false "legitimate rape" statement every day for ten years.
So does anyone know why Trump just stopped his rally halfway through, just to stand there like a lost child for 40 minutes while they played music over him?
I'm sure it has nothing to do with his advanced age.
On October 16 2024 22:09 NewSunshine wrote: So does anyone know why Trump just stopped his rally halfway through, just to stand there like a lost child for 40 minutes while they played music over him?
I'm sure it has nothing to do with his advanced age.
Yeah I was confused by that too. Also, I don't think it was just a generic rally, but even worse: I think it was a town hall event, which is supposed to be all Q&A between the voters and the candidate. I think he just stopped taking questions and played music instead, while standing around and looking super dopey for 40 minutes.
On October 16 2024 17:29 EnDeR_ wrote: DPB, I appreciate your efforts to getting the thread back on track
For those of us with less time on our hands, could you give us a sense of what was discussed in the videos to see if they're worth watching?
I'm trying lol. The Howard Stern and Jimmy Kimmel conversations are very friendly and casual - no one would suggest that the hosts are asking hard-hitting journalism questions - but they do such a wonderful job of showing how relatable Harris and Walz are. You'll see sincerity and joy and humor and empathy and normal human qualities that are severely lacking on the Trump/Vance side. Harris already runs circles around Trump when it comes to the presidential issues, and the previous two videos do a great job of complementing the political side by bringing out the heartfelt anecdotes and backstories and context of who Harris and Walz are and where they came from.
If you drew a face on a plank of wood then it would be more relatable than Trump.
Quantum physics, women, how the Irish language works are perhaps 3 topics I’ll never understand through some degree of actual difficulty and/or my own incompetence.
How people actually relate to Donald Trump and have his shtick resonate is one of life’s great mysteries to me that I really can’t ascribe personal deficiencies to as an explanation.
There’s plenty of history’s greatest monsters who, yeah they’re monsters but I can get the contemporary appeal, or admire their competence if nothing else.
Despite being incredibly shit, Trump’s not hitting that tier in my estimation, but equally I do find his wide appeal genuinely unfathomable
JD Vance has been flaming out in recent interview after recent interview. After his embarrassing non-response during his debate against Walz, he's been repeatedly asked the same question - Did Trump lose the 2020 election - over and over again. His continued refusal to tell the truth and publicly admit that Trump lost that election (because it would piss off Trump) keeps going viral.
On October 16 2024 23:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: JD Vance has been flaming out in recent interview after recent interview. After his embarrassing non-response during his debate against Walz, he's been repeatedly asked the same question - Did Trump lose the 2020 election - over and over again. His continued refusal to tell the truth and publicly admit that Trump lost that election (because it would piss off Trump) keeps going viral.
On October 16 2024 23:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: JD Vance has been flaming out in recent interview after recent interview. After his embarrassing non-response during his debate against Walz, he's been repeatedly asked the same question - Did Trump lose the 2020 election - over and over again. His continued refusal to tell the truth and publicly admit that Trump lost that election (because it would piss off Trump) keeps going viral.
It would be utterly laughable if people didn’t actually swallow this shite
It is kinda funny what happens when you figure out what a politician can't say.
"Did Donald Trump lose the election?" "Big technology firms..."
But yeah, it is also incredibly insane that this is an actual thing. And scary, because of how bad it is for democracy if losers don't accept that they lost.
EPT
