Jump to content

Kyle

banned
  • Posts

    1684
  • Joined

Posts posted by Kyle

  1. 3 hours ago, TexMex Horn said:

    While I agree with many of you about how we react to stories like this. Whether it's an old man killed by teens or a citizen killed while in custody of the police, our perception will steer our reaction. Got it. I agree.

    But, I'd like to know how these teens (& others, of course) got here. I'm a pro-traditional family guy. I believe that many of societies ills are result of a dysfunctional family. I'd like to believe that a traditional family upbringing would produce/develop less negative societal denizens.

    Some/most might respond, of course that would be better. So, if so, then why aren't we trying to encourage this as a solution?

    Prepared to duck. Just my 2¢

    Let's have thousands of kids roam the streets unsupervised for a year ... what could go wrong?

    But you're correct ... having a father in the household is a considerable stabilizing factor.

  2. 3 hours ago, Don Johnson said:

    Probably will never happen, but I hope in a few years we can take an honest look at the short/long effects and Monday Morning QB the hell out of every side of it.   If this happens again, I hope we have a better plan.  I hope one side can realize science isn't bad and the other side can realize than science is only a piece of the puzzle, not the driver in every decision.

    I'll take a shit on the moon before anyone in government holds themselves accountable.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. 6 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    Corporations benefitted from this tremendously.  The social media giants are loving every aspect of this.  They thrive on discord and animosity.  Everyone cooped up losing their shit on their sites if pure gold. Their shares are SOARING right now.  Apple, Google, Twatter, FB, etc.  Profitability has never been higher.  

    Then you have ZOOM, all the streaming services, etc.

    And the retailers?  Amazon, all the other big box stores & chains - they (being of course "critical") are crushing it.  Much of their competition has been regulated out of existence at the federal, state, and local levels.  Tens of thousands of smaller business will never return.  McDonalds and Starbucks...they're doing great. 

    Not saying they are intentionally driving policy and public opinions to stay locked down, but you have to wonder (off the record) that they are not shedding any tears the longer this draws out.  This is a further consolidation of power among a select few that wield more and more influence.  Many are now as "essential" as the banks were back in '07-08 and have conveniently aligned their interests with the interests of the federal government that more and more protects them.

    This may well turn out to be the single biggest power grab by public companies in the history of this country.  

    It's not a coincidence that my biggest pro-lockdown friend gets his money from Netflix.

    Lockdown + $15 minimum wage would be the final destruction of small businesses big corporations want.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  4. 29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Don't disagree.  This is where we will find much disagreement though -- this is why you need clear and decisive leadership at the top, as well as a system that allows for some autonomy as you move down the chain to deal with local conditions.

    Analogously, it should be a like a good general and his entire chain of command downstream.  A good general comes up with a clear, well-communicated overall strategy and goal.  He even comes up with big picture elements of how to achieve that goal (e.g., aerial bombardment followed by paratroopers AND an amphibious landing).  And then.....he gives a good bit of autonomy to individual commanders on the ground to deal with varying situations, all with the primary goal in mind (e.g., to establish a beachhead from which to launch a prolonged assault to force Germany's surrender).  Some officers will find their situation to be a cakewalk, and they can get troops 20 miles inland to set up a secure position to defend.  Others will be fucked from the get go, missing the landing zones and whatnot, and they'll have to improvise.  But if everyone is on board with the SAME GENERAL PLAN AND GOAL, it works.

    Again, it's BALANCE.  Strong and decisive leadership at the top, but not micromanaging every detail -- grant autonomy to your officers, who in turn grant some autonomy to their sergeants -- that gets shit done.

    Our system failed for sure - I think we see flaws that would be problems regardless of who is in leadership.  But also, many of our individual leaders did, including the most important ones.  And knowing that, now is the time to correct that (actually, starting January 21st was the time to start), and we really haven't done that yet.  And maybe the eggs are so scrambled that they can't be unscrambled.  But we should still fucking try.

    I agree, and I know you will disagree with the following; but I think Trump both not only did a poor job but also would never have been able to do an effective job. The early, initial call to limit travel to/from China as well as the above-noted stupid histrionics around hydroxychloroquine. Unfortunately, our national discussion focused on the horrors of using the term "Wuhan Virus" (the accepted convention) and the simultaneously denial of its severity and encouraging people to attend events in Chinatown. Again, that's not to excuse Trump's missteps, but I have no evidence to believe his clear and decisive leadership would have been met with anything but dismissal and derision. Of course, it does not help that he's a crazy man-child has the maturity of an elementary school bully.

    Unfortunately, the Biden administration much better other than saying "wear a mask" and "shots" a lot more. And IMHO Fauci is just terrible. He's a big part of the problem with his mixed messages and love of the spotlight. Hard to take a "public health expert" seriously when he sits for covers of entertainment magazines.

  5. 20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    What gets me is how they couch -- or fail to couch -- risk.

    As I've said here before, some statements and understanding EARLY about balancing risks, and the level of acceptable risk, would have been REALLY helpful.  And we got it from nobody.  I would have been thrilled had some significant leadership said early on that what makes this particular virus a special problem we have to deal with is that it spreads very easily, and has a higher rate of serious illness and death than comparable illnesses, so that it results in us having way too many people seriously ill and hospitalized, as well as dying.  Our goal is to attack this illness with a combination of public health measures (like masks and testing and tracing), developing therapeutics to reduce the severity of the illness when it is contracted, and ultimately, developing vaccines which reduce the frequency and severity of the illness, so that we can turn "deadly and very virulent" COVID into "not more deadly and virulent than other respiratory viruses we have learned to live with, like the seasonal flu."  When we get to that point, then we will have won this battle.  We will likely have to continue to work to make it even less common, and less serious, but that is the work we do in the next phase.  Be patient, and work with us all together, and we can get to that point.

    We didn't get it from anywhere.  Instead, we got stupid extremes of risk assessment pushed for myriad reasons -- emotions, irrationality, politics, etc.  The two dominant "risk" themes were 1) "I can do what I want, and judge my own risks, so let me do whatever with no restrictions" (which is asinine because it utterly fails to account for the fact that when you are dealing with a virus, YOUR risk imposes risk on OTHERS), and 2) "any risk is too much!  One death is one death too many!" (which is asinine because it sets an unachievable goal, and condemns us to living in a "state of war" for what will likely be a decade).  Neither one includes any real balancing of public health needs, economic needs and effects, emotional health and safety, etc.  That balanced approach -- or at least any clear and controlling message on it -- has been non-existent.  It fucking blows me away, and makes me pretty ragey.  At everyone.  I've made no secret of the fact that I thought the Trump admin screwed the pooch a hundred different ways.  And while I'm pleased with the logistical and focused approach of the Biden admin in the vaccine rollout...I find the admin's lack of good and hopeful messaging very frustrating.

    We need a fucking achievable goal.  Otherwise, people give up, and/or just fight with each other.  Tell the "muh freedoms I get to do what I want!" crowd to fuck off.  Tell the "how dare you let one person be at risk of catching COVID!" crowd to fuck off.  Then craft a sane, balanced approach and tell folks that's how it's gonna be.

    100%. Weaponizing public health is a terrible strategy. A binary approach to complexity is a terrible strategy. What frustrated me was the ever changing goalposts, mixed messages, and the subsequent extreme reactions on both sides (if you will, but there really should not be a side on things like this). Looking at the data, one was able to observe pretty obvious trends that should have been the basis of the strategy. There were myriad mistakes to go around. 

  6. 2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

     

    A call for more nuanced and intellectual thought by surly members, brought to you by the poster who said this:

    "Bless your heart. Whataboutism is so cute. I has to intimidate you Betas a hot chick as sharp as her ... hence why a stupid cow like Psaki is more fitting of your Beta bedroom prowess ... all trying to perform while longing to be a ABCDEFG+_*/ affirmation of Betaness."

    I'm flattered, but I'm married.

    Sue me, I can be serious and sarcastic. (that what many of the binary tribals can't figure out) Trying to reason with people that think Circle Back Sake is amazing at her job is like telling Majorie Taylor Green Jewish Space Lazers are not a thing.

  7. 3 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

    Hate and division = ratings. Victim hood = customer base. 

    I think my link got messed up earlier, but this is the results: https://www.skeptic.com/research-center/reports/Research-Report-CUPES-007.pdf

    Summary of Findings

    1. The available data on police shootings of unarmed Black men is incomplete; however, existing data indicate that somewhere between 13-27 unarmed black men were killed by police in 2019. Adjusted for the number of law enforcement agencies that have yet to provide data, this number may be higher, perhaps between 60-100.

    Yet, over half (53.5%) of those reporting “very liberal” political views estimated that 1,000 or more unarmed Black men were killed, a likely error of at least an order of magnitude (see Figure 1).

    2. The available data suggest that 24.9% of people killed by police in 2019 were Black. However, across the political spectrum, survey participants overestimated this number.

    Those who reported being “liberal” or “very liberal” were particularly inaccurate, estimating the proportion to be 56% and 60%, respectively (see Figure 2).

  8. 1 hour ago, lmao said:

     

    I mean the other groups that are anti-covid vax have probably received your standard vaccinations at one point. This isn't some binary thing you can pin on a political party. The anti-covid vax crowd is pretty damn diverse tbh. 

    It's amazing so many educated people (not specific to this board but it has plenty) have adopted such simpleton, binary world views. Especially when such obvious evidence is more accessible than ever, even from partisan sites. People's ability to completely ignore contradictory evidence is astounding.

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/coronavirus-vaccine-trump-2020-election_n_5f60cc29c5b65fd7b8550ef9

    "Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) joined over a dozen other Senate Democrats in asking the FDA to commit to a transparent review process for potential vaccines. “We are concerned that the accelerated timeline and intense political pressure around the vaccine development process could have the unintended consequence of undermining public confidence in the safety and quality of an eventual vaccine,” the senators wrote in a letter on Monday."

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/anti-vaxxers-feed-off-democrats-skepticism-of-covid-vaccine/ar-BB19KESg

    "On September 24, New York governor Andrew Cuomo said the state will independently review all vaccines authorized by the federal government. "Frankly, I'm not going to trust the federal government's opinion and I wouldn't recommend to New Yorkers based on the federal government's opinion," he said in a statement. This lack of trust in the government was picked up on by some anti-vax groups, saying Cuomo was reiterating their own arguments against vaccines generally. Cuomo's spokesman Richard Azzopardi responded to these groups, telling Newsweek "the anti-science crowd should knock it off and stop twisting our words." "What we don't trust is a federal government that has been caught red-handed multiple times circumventing the health experts and ‎making political decisions seemingly to boost the president's re-election chances."

    VP Brown anti-vaxx

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. On 3/28/2021 at 5:34 PM, Wulaw Horn said:

    Awesome movie. 
    Did it make sense/was it believable? No

    did it have stakes I cared about?  Absolutely not. 
    Did it have cool fights, people getting blown up, people dying and totally and completely unrealistic violence amped up to 11?  Yes, yes it did. 
    was it enjoyable to watch this while my kids were watching Tom and Jerry in the next theater over and my wife was at home so I had two hours to turn my mind off and eat junior mints?

    yes. Yes it was. 

    Said another way ... kind of why we go to movies, and they're awesome!

    • Like 1
  10. 2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    Perhaps you have me mistaken for someone else?  I thought it was a foolish sideline issue that was used as sleight-of-hand to try to get people to buy into a view that COVID was no big deal, as there was a miracle cure.  But I didn't spend a whole lot of energy on it, IIRC.  Others here certainly did, and they stated the issues better than I could have, so no need.

    Apologies as I was not directly talking about you ... just one of the stupid takes in a year of Idiocracy. Maybe the best example of anti-science hysteria during the pandemic.

  11. 29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Yeah.....I was "there" the whole time.  Overly cautious response to threat with a lot of unknowns in the initial 30 days is pretty much EXACTLY how that sort of thing is supposed to go.  Limited data meant a very wide threat matrix.  Which means a wider response.  The more info you get, the better you tailor your response, balancing all other considerations.  Among those considerations is length of time.  "Shutting things down" for 30 days is a big deal.....but not nearly as big a deal as shutting them down for a year.  So, take steps, and constantly reevaluate and rebalance.  That's why, when I've talked about what the plan should be, we must articulate the goals of that plan -- what are the metrics we're shooting for?  That way, the "abundance of caution, even one death is too many!" folks wouldn't really have a good position.  The absence of a clearly-stated set of metrics allows nutty ones like theirs to get a voice.

    A good approach in a federal system would have been to have a fair number of measures and best-practices on a national level, with different metrics for their application in different places (if your transmission rate is X, consider these measures, if it's 5X, consider these measures, that sort of thing).  That thus wouldn't lead to a "one size fits all" approach.  Local communities could and would have the flexibility to respond to their specific conditions.

    I certainly don't believe that ANYONE did, or could have, hit the perfect sweet spot in responding to this pandemic.  Here, any other country, anywhere.  But we could have gotten a lot closer to the bullseye than we did.

    Definitely should have spent a few more thousand hours gnashing teeth about the horrors of hydroxychloroquine. 

    • Fuck You 1
  12. 2 hours ago, lmao said:

    Just commited a carjacking & the body of the person she killed was a few feet from her and the only thing she was worried about was her phone. That was so fucking dark. I have no words. RIP to that man.

    A similar story happened in Wisconsin where kids killed this poor woman and a bunch of other watched and filmed it.

    "Lewis is also said to have claimed that Lee offered to have sex with him consensually, in front of the other boys, Fox6 reported. He told investigators that he ‘didn’t really care about (Lee) because she’s not someone he knows personally’ after leaving her for dead.

    https://metro.co.uk/2021/02/11/boys-15-and-17-filmed-themselves-raping-killing-woman-36-at-park-14067686/

  13. 5 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

    You would not believe the utter diarrhea that grad students (and tenured faculty for that matter) in Anthropology, History, English, and [__________'s Studies] put out.  I would almost bet my entire investment savings, that somewhere in some dark, untrodden corner of some library (or never-reachable directory in some storage computer) that someone actually wrote an entire article or thesis on what you said here, without question.  I could almost guarantee it.  And I'm serious.  No question in my mind that someone actually believes this (or at least is decent enough to bullshit about it but not believe it in order to please the prof).

    I myself had to write some of this shit just to see if I could do it (and placate the radical mentor leading my grad class).  It's almost literally "what's the most idiotic, far-fetched thing I could ever imagine, the most preposterous what-if I'm capable of connecting?"  And wrote a paper on it.

    One of my beauts is that Charles Ives's music was tacitly a signal to males to rape women.  And I got an A on it.  I shit you not.  Laughed all the way to the trash bin.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6239071/Academic-journals-caught-massive-hoax-involving-20-FAKE-papers.html

    Academic journals have been caught up in a massive hoax involving 20 fake papers. 

    Researchers published fake and convoluted papers on 'dog rape culture', 'a conceptual penis' and even re-wrote a chapter of Mein Kampf.

    Their aim was to expose how 'absurdities' get published in legitimate peer-reviewed academic papers due to a lack of critical review.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  14. 48 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

    it's bullshit articles and publications like this that is poisoning everything. This shit transcends political ideology as there is as much bull shit on the left, like this dumbass article and all the hyper woke bs, as there is on the right, choose any of the disinformation from the last few years. Throw in shit about flat Earth and anti vax bullshit, and well, it's no fucking wonder that everyone hates everyone, distrust everyone, and is pissed about everything else. 

    I blame the internet. 

     

    Screen Shot 2021-03-29 at 4.17.13 PM.png

    • Hook 'Em 1
×
×
  • Create New...