| Forum Index > General Forum |
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control. It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you. Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly. This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here. Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10366 Posts
Sorry, but why exactly should I believe you over Fauci's reasoning for his statement in that interview instead of Fauci himself? Is this really the hill you want to die on? Also love how you selectively edited my quote to delete the portion that the CDC and US Surgeon General were also saying the same thing about masks. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3769 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10366 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3769 Posts
On February 02 2023 09:34 BlackJack wrote: What are you even talking about? I didn't mention anything about goalpost moving. My point is that we absolutely were told to not wear masks at the beginning and we were told that to intentionally deceive us so we wouldn't panic-buy them You said this. I remember when Fauci and the experts were saying masks don’t help prevent COVID. In response to a claim that there was a lot of goalpost moving going on by authority figures (like Fauci). And yet somehow you weren't talking about goalpost moving. Ok. Right. Ok. OK! Got it. Meanwhile your claim was totally not disproven either. I'm going to bed now. I live in reality, not alternative reality. I have things to do. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8631 Posts
this is a recurring pattern here among a number of posters | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13828 Posts
On February 02 2023 11:18 evilfatsh1t wrote: posts a bunch of nonsense, gets called out on it, then chooses to disengage or ask for a change of topic because they are sitting on a high horse and are apparently either too civil to argue their points or have better things to do with their time. this is a recurring pattern here among a number of posters I agree everytime this thread goes to shit its either you or BJ not being able to handle being disagreed with. I'm glad you're able to self critize like this it shows good character. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44102 Posts
On February 02 2023 11:32 Sermokala wrote: I agree everytime this thread goes to shit its either you or BJ not being able to handle being disagreed with. I'm glad you're able to self critize like this it shows good character. 100% agree on the irony of evil's post lol. On topic: Here's a cool scientific breakdown of the newer generations of bivalent covid vaccines, from a Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00220-z | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8631 Posts
On February 02 2023 11:32 Sermokala wrote: I agree everytime this thread goes to shit its either you or BJ not being able to handle being disagreed with. I'm glad you're able to self critize like this it shows good character. not sure where ive shown instances of wanting to stop discussing whatever i was discussing because "i couldnt handle being disagreed with". most of the arguments ive been involved in wasnt even me bringing my own opinions, im clarifying what is clearly an issue with communication between people who cant read plain english impartially. but sure, you think that. whatever makes you sleep at night buddy On February 02 2023 11:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: 100% agree on the irony of evil's post lol. On topic: Here's a cool scientific breakdown of the newer generations of bivalent covid vaccines, from a Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00220-z do you want me to go back a few pages and quote the number of times you asked to stop engaging with me and wanted to change the topic? i dont think you know what irony means | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44102 Posts
On February 02 2023 11:51 evilfatsh1t wrote: do you want me to go back a few pages and quote the number of times you asked to stop engaging with me and wanted to change the topic? i dont think you know what irony means 1. Sure? If you want to? 2. Even if you were also talking about me, your post can still be ironic. Don't critique the use of a word if you don't know what it means. 3. The irony comes from the fact that the person you were white-knighting for did exactly what you just criticized: posted a bunch of nonsense (Project Veritas + conspiracy theories, and that's just the most recent example), got called out for it by several people, and then pivoted to other things. Also, it's totally fine to move on to a different topic, so I don't even know what the hell you're so upset about. Not to mention the fact that your simping for BlackJack was so biased that you couldn't even respond to direct quotes of his that we cited when trying to explain to you why we took issue with what he was saying. It's ironic (and hypocritical) when you smugly critique people you disagree with that do the exact same thing that people you agree with do. We know your criticism isn't aimed at everyone equally. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28621 Posts
| ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8631 Posts
On February 02 2023 12:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: 1. Sure? If you want to? 2. Even if you were also talking about me, your post can still be ironic. Don't critique the use of a word if you don't know what it means. 3. The irony comes from the fact that the person you were white-knighting for did exactly what you just criticized: posted a bunch of nonsense (Project Veritas + conspiracy theories, and that's just the most recent example), got called out for it by several people, and then pivoted to other things. Also, it's totally fine to move on to a different topic, so I don't even know what the hell you're so upset about. Not to mention the fact that your simping for BlackJack was so biased that you couldn't even respond to direct quotes of his that we cited when trying to explain to you why we took issue with what he was saying. It's ironic (and hypocritical) when you smugly critique people you disagree with that do the exact same thing that people you agree with do. We know your criticism isn't aimed at everyone equally. yeah, theres no irony. it would be ironic if i had done the things i said you guys are doing, but i havent. simple as that. i havent tried to change the subject by pretending like this entire discussion is "off-topic" or saying that i had better things to do with my time. i also havent "simped" for blackjack. i dont actually take his side much on the validity of the content of his posts. im merely point out that the people he is engaging with is misinterpreting his posts. theyre completely different things. simping would be On November 12 2022 10:42 JimmiC wrote: I searched it on youtube and found it. WAY less veiws then your source said. Im not watching it, but you should really reconsider where you are getting your "news"  + Show Spoiler + On November 12 2022 10:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: About 2,500 views, with comments turned off, instead of "over 990,000 views and 7,000 comments" hahahaha. this. taking jimmic's side, presumably finding out how wrong he was, disappearing from the following conversation entirely and not having the balls to not only call out jimmic for his error but own up to your own for agreeing with him in the first place. thats what "simping" is. my direct response to the bolded part is i didnt need to. you tried to justify why you came to your conclusions about what bj was saying and i told you your conclusion was wrong. why do i have to break down each thing you quote and explain to you why your reading comprehension was incorrect? my posts summarised my thoughts clearly enough without having to address every quote you cited. if you were unprejudiced readers, you would look at what the post is saying and not try to infer anything further than what was explicitly said in the post. or at the very least, if an incorrect inference was made, users could attempt to clear the air without the needless hostility that so often is included in most of the posts against bj. however, a number of posters here see either the username, or a bunch of keywords that they dont like and immediately assume the op's motivations ("oh bj is a right wing anti vaxxer so this post that contains a snippet of content on pv must automatically mean he is a proponent of pv and vax conspiracies!!"). then when the op explains the true intent behind his post, the readers have the audacity to insist that their own interpretations of the post was in fact the true intention of the op. how you have the gall to say youre unprejudiced is beyond me. On February 02 2023 14:50 Liquid`Drone wrote: To be clear: disengaging when a topic has run its course is VERY MUCH the recommended course of action. Clarify, move on, don't demand that others agree with you is probably the only way, aside from a roman peace option that I personally dislike, to have a semblance of civility here. the problem is its hard to tell when a topic has run its course. when the debate is ongoing and a user continues to post something in disagreement, but in the same post attempt to get the last word in and effectively announce that they wont listen to anything further, that doesnt seem like posting in good faith. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28621 Posts
| ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8631 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10366 Posts
Which somehow means he is “taking my side” or “simping for me” lmao. It’s literally a direct refutation of my post. Apparently “taking BJs side” is basically doing anything but interpreting my posts in the most idiotic and least charitable way possible. I called PV sketchy, biased, dubious, and not credible and DPB wants to argue that I’m saying we should take anything PV says as trustworthy. Then whine when others won’t do the same. ChristianS also had no problem interpreting my posts and he’s not exactly “on my side” either. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44102 Posts
On February 02 2023 15:17 evilfatsh1t wrote: yeah, theres no irony. it would be ironic if i had done the things i said you guys are doing, but i havent. simple as that. i havent tried to change the subject by pretending like this entire discussion is "off-topic" or saying that i had better things to do with my time. i also havent "simped" for blackjack. i dont actually take his side much on the validity of the content of his posts. im merely point out that the people he is engaging with is misinterpreting his posts. theyre completely different things. simping would be this. taking jimmic's side, presumably finding out how wrong he was, disappearing from the following conversation entirely and not having the balls to not only call out jimmic for his error but own up to your own for agreeing with him in the first place. thats what "simping" is. my direct response to the bolded part is i didnt need to. you tried to justify why you came to your conclusions about what bj was saying and i told you your conclusion was wrong. why do i have to break down each thing you quote and explain to you why your reading comprehension was incorrect? my posts summarised my thoughts clearly enough without having to address every quote you cited. if you were unprejudiced readers, you would look at what the post is saying and not try to infer anything further than what was explicitly said in the post. or at the very least, if an incorrect inference was made, users could attempt to clear the air without the needless hostility that so often is included in most of the posts against bj. however, a number of posters here see either the username, or a bunch of keywords that they dont like and immediately assume the op's motivations ("oh bj is a right wing anti vaxxer so this post that contains a snippet of content on pv must automatically mean he is a proponent of pv and vax conspiracies!!"). then when the op explains the true intent behind his post, the readers have the audacity to insist that their own interpretations of the post was in fact the true intention of the op. how you have the gall to say youre unprejudiced is beyond me. the problem is its hard to tell when a topic has run its course. when the debate is ongoing and a user continues to post something in disagreement, but in the same post attempt to get the last word in and effectively announce that they wont listen to anything further, that doesnt seem like posting in good faith. I wasn't part of that November discussion, but I'm impressed you went all the way back to page 656. I made three posts across ten pages (p.656-666): one where I was skeptical about the proposed viewercount of that controversial video, one about the general concept of censorship (unrelated to JimmiC and any back-and-forth he was having), and one telling you I was sorry for your loss (also unrelated to JimmiC and any back-and-forth he was having). There's nothing else to it; I simply wasn't a part of that conversation in this thread. Perhaps we're using "simping" differently. My understanding of the term is when someone is being overly sympathetic towards, and defensive for, someone. If I had written multiple posts arguing on behalf of JimmiC (or anyone), then I would consider that to be simping for someone. Your example of my simping was me writing a single one-liner post about a topic that I otherwise wasn't even contributing to, not even defending JimmiC at all about anything. I'm sure I've agreed with JimmiC and others many times throughout this thread, and have had back-and-forth discussions about individuals and their positions, but it's weird to me that you went back several months to find a non-example of what we're talking about. On the other hand, you came back to this thread solely to voice your support for BlackJack (and rarely to actually address the covid-related content). On January 31st, in a single day, you wrote over ten posts purely talking about how you're the BlackJack whisperer, trying to fend off everyone else's criticism of him. That's what I mean by simping. We don't have to use that word though, and it'd be really nice if you contributed to an issue on something covid-related instead of posting snide remarks like the one we're replying to now: "posts a bunch of nonsense, gets called out on it, then chooses to disengage or ask for a change of topic because they are sitting on a high horse and are apparently either too civil to argue their points or have better things to do with their time. this is a recurring pattern here among a number of posters" Why not respond to an article or post your own? On February 02 2023 16:17 BlackJack wrote: Not taking the bait, sorry. People can read the whole conversation if they want, starting at https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=679#13566 | ||
|
Mikau313
Netherlands230 Posts
On February 02 2023 15:44 evilfatsh1t wrote: well i guess then its the hope of putting a definitive end to a recurring problem that makes it hard to know when to stop. This is some /r/selfawarewolves level comment. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44102 Posts
On February 02 2023 23:21 JimmiC wrote: Interesting, they are sure making some cool advancememts, hopefully enough people will take them. Two of my friends day homes are now shut down, oir day care is still good. It is super hard to find new short term childcare, and I hope the sick kids get better! https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/news/Page17121.aspx From your article: "Immunization is the best method to protect against and limit the spread of pertussis, along with regular hand washing and remembering not to share drinks, food, or cutlery. Pertussis immunization is safe and effective against preventing severe illness. In Alberta, it is free for all children less than 18 years of age, people who are in the third trimester of pregnancy (27 weeks), and adults who have not had a tetanus booster in the past 10 years." Seems pretty straightforward. I wonder what percentage of anti-covid-vaccine people are completely against all vaccines (no pertussis, MMR, influenza, etc.) vs. what percentage of anti-covid-vaccine people are okay with other vaccines but are specifically against the covid vaccine for whatever reason (mRNA sounds scary, it's too new despite having gone through clinical trials, their favorite conservative newscaster or politician thinks covid vaccines are a hoax, etc.). | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Razyda
644 Posts
On February 02 2023 03:34 travis wrote: I am sure the majority of you are still 1000 years behind reality, but for those that are interested in actual facts, and properly executed scientific method: Steve Kirsch has had an open challenge for months now, for anyone to debate him for $1,000,000 on various topics regarding the pandemic and the covid vaccines. No one took him up on any of them. I wonder why. He even sent open challenges to some very outspoken pro-vax people - no takers, of course. He was willing to change the amount of money, so that isn't the reason why. Anyways, someone finally took him up on one of his debate topics. The claim that will be debated is: Do the Covid-19 mrna vaccines cause more deaths than they prevent. Steve Kirsch says yes, Saar Wilf, representing Dardalin Ltd, says no. I don't know much about Saar Wilf or his company, but I do know Kirsch has a team of around ~75 volunteers(including me) helping him prepare for this debate. Many of these people are experts in related fields (attorneys, professors, doctors, epidemiologists, statisticians, data scientists, etc). We are all very passionate about this because we believe the debate could potentially save lives, and we care about that. We formed 2 primary sub-teams, one team is taking each side, and then attacking their own side. Then we do mock debates, and afterwards help the other team. I can tell you, for anyone with even a shred of intellectual honesty who actually cares, the evidence is overwhelming. The debate should be hilariously one sided. Here is a copy of the signed memorandum of understanding, https://www.skirsch.com/covid/GreatDebateTermsheet.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email Last thing I will say is, there's gonna be a reckoning for some of you. Brainwashed worshipers of the state. I actually find this thread so distasteful, it's literally gross to me. I don't feel bad for saying this, it's just the truth. Will this be streamed anywhere? Would love to watch it. | ||
| ||
|
|
CranKy Ducklings
Bellum Gens Elite
Reynor vs ShoWTimE
Serral vs Lambo
Clem vs Zoun
3DClanTV
 0SC Evo League
Fire Grow Cup
CSO Contender
BSL: ProLeague
StRyKeR vs MadiNho
Cross vs UltrA
TT1 vs JDConan
Bonyth vs Sziky
Replay Cast
SOOP Global
Creator vs Rogue
Cure vs Classic
SOOP
Classic vs GuMiho
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
