Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
LastLast
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Or as part of "vaccines work in general through well-known mechanism, therefore this vaccine must also work"? Which can fail with some new vaccines for some subpopulations like we're seeing with AZ version in Europe; sometimes there can be manufacturing/sourcing problems too for specific batches.
    Oh, look. You're doing your "doubt the factually based and well-established position" because of "very minor quibble/exception" schtick.

    *Yawn*
    "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
    -Louis Brandeis

  2. #82
    https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/03/...-equality-ban/

    Want some non-bait-and-switch identity politics too?

    Missouri Republicans refuse to let Democrats remove the states ban on gay marriage. A ban that doesn't actually exist and is unenforcable as marriage equality is federally protected.

    Republicans, who have often never seen a regulation they didn't want to remove, seem adamant in keeping this pointless language in. Why? Culture wars. Identity politics. Play up to the bigots.

  3. #83
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    "Poeple who believe masks are bad and people who believe masks are good are just the same for trusting in their authority figures!"

    The flu season just didn't happen this year, we practically wiped out the flu this year because masks and social distancing made it almost impossible for the flu to spread.

    Also, anyone who thinks that masks have tiny tracking chips in each of them, and that George Soros has put mind control chips in every Covid vaccine, is not mentally well, and neither their opinion nor their trusted sources should be considered valid.

    The difference between believing scientists and believing absolute nut jobs, is that one is tribalism and one is not. One who has gone to school and understands the scientific process and how rigorous it is at weeding out bullshit will know that science is very self regulating. Education makes us understand that the conclusions scientists come to is not just some blind faith claim, but something they eventually arrived at after thousands of hours of research and testing. There is no such self regulation for the shit Alex Jones vomits up.

    One is blind faith tribalism, the other is a deep understanding of a self regulating system. Anyone who thinks that the two are remotely similar in how "blind faith" works is a fucking idiot and should not be taken seriously.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  4. #84
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Missouri Republicans refuse to let Democrats remove the states ban on gay marriage. A ban that doesn't actually exist and is unenforcable as marriage equality is federally protected.
    I wouldn't be remotely surprised if they were still trying to enforce that law.

    They kept at it for at least a decade after Lawrence v. Texas.

    Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
    What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Naw. You're denying the existence of objective reality, wholesale, here.
    Objective reality (more likely) exists. What people have inside their heads and what they share with each other isn't objective reality itself though but fairly limited model approximation of it.

    With updates to that model most of the time arriving through social links rather then through direct experimentation with objective reality - with a lot of biases distorting initial "real" image along the way.

    This is just obviously untrue. Only one of those sides has any merit to it, any evidence or reason behind its position. The "masks are harmful" folks are just belligerent jackwads who either don't care who gets hurt by their actions, or actively reject basic reality because they are so blindly, unthinkingly partisan and have chosen to make "wearing a mask during a pandemic" into a political issue.

    Here's a tip; that this is basically only present in the USA is a clear indication that it's an individual failure of each of those anti-maskers, not some determinably valid position.
    They believe they and those around them will get hurt by such actions, and act accordingly - until proven wrong through channel they trust. It is certainly not US-centric issue - many other countries either don't give anti-maskers such an option (through fines and police action enforcing mask use) or don't give them ability to voice their concerns in major media outlets.

    As such i see it as systemic rather then individual fault.

    It is hardly their fault that unlike someone from university they aren't part of scientific community and don't have understanding why and when trust in scientific findings is warranted - or, more commonly, trust in media reporting on them, given that they never engage with source papers.

    Epidemiological dynamics are far from "basic reality" given that many people didn't encounter epidemics that mandated constant mask use through their whole lives.

    It has fuck-all to do with "tribalism"; you just want to pretend, falsely, that both sides have validity and it's just a matter of opinion. That's not the case.
    Both sides engage in similar behavior that has no bearing on validity of evidence supporting it.

    I don't even disagree that masks side has better evidence behind them.

    But "Our side has facts/validity!" is pointless when battle isn't about facts (as in scientific dispute) but about enforcing certain course of actions (which is, inescapably, politics).

    Whining "why those idiots don't follow evidence?!" is seen as "why evidence-based technocracy haven't already won as it should?!".

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    Oh, look. You're doing your "doubt the factually based and well-established position" because of "very minor quibble/exception" schtick.
    I think it is important to understand limits of factual and well-established positions, and which parameters should be controlled for them to stay true.
    Last edited by Shalcker; 2021-03-31 at 06:14 AM.

  6. #86
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    Yes Shlacker, all of us here understand that conspiracy nuts genuinely believe their authoritarian figures. You're acting like this is some big revelation or relevant in any way. Otherwise you're just making the same dumb "EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE TO SOMEONE'S POINT OF VIEW" argument that conservatives who are losing an argument on this forum like to make. Nobody is disputing that they genuinely believe in them.

    The fact is that science is rigorously self-regulating. Alex Jones and Marjorie Taylor Greene are not. That's the difference between blind faith tribalism and genuine understanding. They faithfully believe conspiracy nutters because they just do. They want to believe in whatever anti-liberal schtick is out there. The rest of us listen to scientists because we know how science works.

    There's a reason there's a big education gap in voting. And the conservatives who are educated are far less likely to be in science heavy fields. "Education has a liberal bias."
    Last edited by Cthulhu 2020; 2021-03-31 at 09:45 AM.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  7. #87
    The Lightbringer GreenGoldSharpie's Avatar
    5+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    3,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    Yes Shlacker, all of us here understand that conspiracy nuts genuinely believe their authoritarian figures. You're acting like this is some big revelation or relevant in any way. Otherwise you're just making the same dumb "EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE TO SOMEONE'S POINT OF VIEW" argument that conservatives who are losing an argument on this forum like to make. Nobody is disputing that they genuinely believe in them.

    The fact is that science is rigorously self-regulating. Alex Jones and Marjorie Taylor Greene are not. That's the difference between blind faith tribalism and genuine understanding. They faithfully believe conspiracy nutters because they just do. They want to believe in whatever anti-liberal schtick is out there. The rest of us listen to scientists because we know how science works.

    There's a reason there's a big education gap in voting. And the conservatives who are educated are far less likely to be in science heavy fields. "Education has a liberal bias."
    Dude, this brand of conservatism is entirely based on not listening to those expert dorks and doing their own research online as a viable strategy for understanding the world. These people are fucking idiots, but they hold a lot of sway.

  8. #88
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,899
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Both sides engage in similar behavior that has no bearing on validity of evidence supporting it.
    At this point, pretty much any "both sides" argument can be summarily dismissed as deliberate disinformation. You're trying to equate two disparate things, and act as if the truth is somehow equidistant from both, and that's simply just something you are making up based on nothing.

    But "Our side has facts/validity!" is pointless when battle isn't about facts (as in scientific dispute) but about enforcing certain course of actions (which is, inescapably, politics).

    Whining "why those idiots don't follow evidence?!" is seen as "why evidence-based technocracy haven't already won as it should?!".
    Yes, we understand that conspiracy theory nutcases who reject basic human decency and any functional grasp of scientific understanding will never be convinced by more science.

    Because they're willful idiots. They choose to remain stupid, because they prefer being stupid.

    That's an individual failure on every single one of their parts, at an individual level. And there is no reason to consider their cockamamie nonsense until/unless they can justify it rationally. Until then, like you, they're just making up wild nonsense that isn't an argument, and thus does not warrant any consideration whatsoever.

    This isn't about "technocracy", it's about reason and logic and facts.

    That a lot of people choose to be idiots together does not mean their idiocy needs to be given political capital.


  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    At this point, pretty much any "both sides" argument can be summarily dismissed as deliberate disinformation. You're trying to equate two disparate things, and act as if the truth is somehow equidistant from both, and that's simply just something you are making up based on nothing.
    I never said anything close to "truth is equidistant from both" - in fact i made my preference clear, stop talking with voices in your head.

    Your basically saying that "both sides talk" and other fairly fundamental human commonalities like tribalism should be dismissed as bothsideism.

    Yes, we understand that conspiracy theory nutcases who reject basic human decency and any functional grasp of scientific understanding will never be convinced by more science.

    Because they're willful idiots. They choose to remain stupid, because they prefer being stupid.
    As far as i see you simply fail at teaching them.

    You're eager to accept systemic racism and yet educational failure should be seen as strictly individual choice rather then systemic? Even when it covers almost half the country? Give me a break.

    That's an individual failure on every single one of their parts, at an individual level. And there is no reason to consider their cockamamie nonsense until/unless they can justify it rationally. Until then, like you, they're just making up wild nonsense that isn't an argument, and thus does not warrant any consideration whatsoever.

    This isn't about "technocracy", it's about reason and logic and facts.
    Facts, logic, and reason are tools. Tools used by humans to reach their goals. They have no inherent value outside of that.

    If there is no agreement about goals saying "but our tools are better!" isn't helping anything.

    That a lot of people choose to be idiots together does not mean their idiocy needs to be given political capital.
    They already have political capital, and given QAnon getting elected into Congress it only seems to get worse with time.

  10. #90
    Bloodsail Admiral Karreck's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Beneath you. Devouring.
    Posts
    1,124
    Somebody is minoring in Philosophy and wants to put that to use on a message board.
    Princesses can kill knights to rescue dragons.

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    The fact is that science is rigorously self-regulating. Alex Jones and Marjorie Taylor Greene are not. That's the difference between blind faith tribalism and genuine understanding. They faithfully believe conspiracy nutters because they just do. They want to believe in whatever anti-liberal schtick is out there. The rest of us listen to scientists because we know how science works.
    Scientists in relevant areas can have approximation of "genuine understanding" - general public cannot. "Listen to scientists" often devolves to scientism - heuristic just like "listen to politicians you elected", not "genuine understanding".

    There is also "scientists looked through their specific dataset and made judgement on things relevant to their area of expertise" vs "politicians looked at broad impact of various suggestions and risk assessments for their constituency and made judgement based on that" - in ideal situation politicians is the one most capable of making "proper" judgement call, not scientist.

    Obviously modern politicians often suck at those - putting higher weight on economy then human lives and then losing at both, downplaying (or overplaying) risks and so on; that doesn't necessarily mean any random scientist (or politician following that scientist unequestionably) would do much better in their position just because he knows scientific method and trusts science.

    There's a reason there's a big education gap in voting.
    What exactly do you see as a reason?

    And the conservatives who are educated are far less likely to be in science heavy fields. "Education has a liberal bias."
    Is that because science suddenly changed from favoring conservative points?

    Or because conservative politics shifted away from science as a tool given easier alternatives?

  12. #92
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Karreck View Post
    Somebody is minoring in Philosophy and wants to put that to use on a message board.
    You are being too generous... Jung’s persona and the concept of identity politics, is an interesting mix to discuss... but, this is just defending a position, that should be indefensible... so, it sounds like primitive philosophy...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    There is also "scientists looked through their specific dataset and made judgement on things relevant to their area of expertise" vs "politicians looked at broad impact of various suggestions and risk assessments for their constituency and made judgement based on that" - in ideal situation politicians is the one most capable of making "proper" judgement call, not scientist.
    No... you don’t have to trust politicians, because the key to their understanding, is transparency. The reason you need to trust scientist, because your life is not long enough to understand it all. Every scientist cannot discover everything on their own, then form new discoveries based on that. It’s simply unreasonable... people don’t even treat their cars with such demands.

    Scientist is also not going to give you the same answer, not necessarily because they are politically different, but because fields of study are different. If you ask a physicist if a falling tree makes a sound when falling, they will give you a resounding yes, with details focusing on sound waves existing regardless of the observer. If you ask a neuroscientist, they will likely answer no, because what you know as sound, is defined by the brain’s interpretation.

    Unlike politics, there is no disagreement, even though both answers seem contradictory. There is no army of neuroscientist storming physics classes and demanding their righteous truth be recognized as one and only...



    Comparing science to politics, means you don’t understand either. There is no instance in science, injecting disinfectant will have a positive or even neutral outcome. Unlike politics, where something that stupid is an effective way to rile up support.

    Edit: Politics depends on subjectiveness of perception, where science attempts to define perception. It’s two opposites...
    Last edited by Felya; 2021-03-31 at 06:50 PM.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  13. #93
    Over 9000! Milchshake's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Shitposter Burn Out
    Posts
    9,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Karreck View Post
    Somebody is minoring in Philosophy and wants to put that to use on a message board.
    I'm getting more of Communications dept vibe.

    Or look, ELEC 301 Proper use to Propaganda at Lumumba University

    /s

  14. #94
    Bloodsail Admiral Karreck's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Beneath you. Devouring.
    Posts
    1,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Milchshake View Post
    I'm getting more of Communications dept vibe.

    Or look, ELEC 301 Proper use to Propaganda at Lumumba University

    /s
    As a Comm Major, I am hurt and offended.

    But it wouldn't surprise me either.
    Princesses can kill knights to rescue dragons.

  15. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    No... you don’t have to trust politicians, because the key to their understanding, is transparency. The reason you need to trust scientist, because your life is not long enough to understand it all.
    The key to trust in science is transparency too - so that data and assumptions can be checked by peers.

    And then replicability of results.

    Every scientist cannot discover everything on their own, then form new discoveries based on that. It’s simply unreasonable... people don’t even treat their cars with such demands.
    You still repeat plenty of experiments in school/university too rather then "trust previous data".

    Because, among other things, it helps to see what problems you might encounter when you try to get theoretically expected results in reality.

    Unlike politics, there is no disagreement, even though both answers seem contradictory.
    Scientists most definitely disagree on many things, both within and across different disciplines.

    Sometimes even unreasonably so - it's weird to contrast them to politicians in this regard.

  16. #96
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    The key to trust in science is transparency too - so that data and assumptions can be checked by peers.

    And then replicability of results.

    You still repeat plenty of experiments in school/university too rather then "trust previous data".

    Because, among other things, it helps to see what problems you might encounter when you try to get theoretically expected results in reality.

    Scientists most definitely disagree on many things, both within and across different disciplines.

    Sometimes even unreasonably so - it's weird to contrast them to politicians in this regard.
    Planck's Principle applies to soft sciences that are mostly theory. Hard sciences rarely ever change. Epidemiology is one of those areas that does not change. Ergo, listening to scientists in a field of hard science, especially as someone who has two majors in hard sciences, is not tribalism. But thanks for conceding the point that blindly swallowing politician lingo and listening to scientists are incredibly different things.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  17. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    Planck's Principle applies to soft sciences that are mostly theory. Hard sciences rarely ever change.
    Planck himself was physicist. I don't think you can get much harder then that.

    Smart scientists can create many explanations for any observed phenomena - and then stick with their preferred explanations and explain away alternatives.

    Especially when testing hypothesis is costly and/or time-consuming. And experiments with sufficient power to decide "true or false" outright aren't always possible too. Often it's steady trickle of non-conclusive data for and against - especially in fields like medicine.

    Epidemiology is one of those areas that does not change.
    What??? This is categorically false.

    Check this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK424984/.

    And then there can be problems with models used to make specific predictions - or being used past limits of their confidence.
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2016822

    Ergo, listening to scientists in a field of hard science, especially as someone who has two majors in hard sciences, is not tribalism.
    It's good but you should always look at qualifiers they apply to their statement.

    And saying "scientist said it therefore his conclusion is automatically true all the time" is.

    But thanks for conceding the point that blindly swallowing politician lingo and listening to scientists are incredibly different things.
    Blindly listening to either is same thing.

    But i don't suggest "not listening" (to either). Rather i think it is best to strengthen accountability of both in society so that such blind trust is warranted.

    Not rejecting tribalism, but weaving it into stronger societal fabric.
    Last edited by Shalcker; 2021-04-01 at 10:09 AM.

  18. #98
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Planck himself was physicist.
    Much of physics IS hard science. Several facets of it are purely speculative, especially those to which Planck's Principle applies. Things we cannot witness or study and can only theorize about based on what we know of existing particles and physics principles. What, you think I didn't know about this?

    You've been in this thread posting PSYC 101 principles as if it's big brain stuff. "PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE DO SO BECAUSE THEY GENUINELY BELIEVE THEIR AUTHORITY FIGURES!" Now it's Physics 101.

    "Advancements in epidemiology made in 2021" Ah yes, we've improved methods of source tracking and other methods of study based on modern technology. You got me. But not really. You're being pedantic since I wasn't that clear in my language - because no, most of the time it's not really worth replying to your word vomit in excruciating detail and I really just gloss over it because most of the time, you're wrong, and not worth more than a single post.

    The basics of epidemiology does not change very much over time. How long has it been since we've known that sickness passes easily through bodily fluids, even that which becomes airborne via sneezing a coughing? Exactly. Improvements are always being made to how we study science. The ways in which we approach and study the science does change. Basic principles of how to prevent the spread of disease has not changed in a long time. We've made improvements to existing principles that we've known for at least a century and probably longer. Asian countries were wearing masks decades ago to prevent the spread of the original SARS, the flu, and the common cold. But they weren't wearing masks since the beginning of knowledge that face masks prevent the spread of infectious bacteria and viruses.

    So again, since the original topic has always been about blind tribalism about people trying to ban masks, vs those who want to require masks to prevent the spread of disease, get the fuck out of here.
    Last edited by Cthulhu 2020; 2021-04-01 at 10:27 AM.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  19. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    Much of physics IS hard science. Several facets of it are purely speculative, especially those to which Planck's Principle applies.
    "Areas to which Planck's Principle applies" - what are you talking about? You didn't follow the link i guess and just go from Planck's name? Since "Planck's principle" isn't about any facets of physics, it's about humans - scientists specifically.

    It has nothing to do with sciences being "hard" or "soft" - it is simply commonly repeated observation.

    Things we cannot witness or study and can only theorize about based on what we know of existing particles and physics principles. What, you think I didn't know about this?
    It sure looks this way - as you seem to be mistaking it with something completely different.

    You've been in this thread posting PSYC 101 principles as if it's big brain stuff. "PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE DO SO BECAUSE THEY GENUINELY BELIEVE THEIR AUTHORITY FIGURES!" Now it's Physics 101.
    I'm primarily going with tribalism angle on both sides to show that you aren't going to change minds by stating "they are wrong, dumb, and personally at fault for their decision to follow wrong figures" - as it would be like trying to convince you "don't follow scientists, look how many things they got wrong!" (which they certainly do, just like politicians - in epidemics initially they are operating with noisy and unreliable data).

    Science, just like politics, isn't about being completely right each and every time. Skepticism is good - in moderation.

    If you want "other tribe" to follow science and stop endangering you then you need to integrate tribal thinking and pathways into framework - given that you cannot crush opposition through pure force.

    "Advancements in epidemiology made in 2021" Ah yes, we've improved methods of source tracking and other methods of study based on modern technology. You got me. But not really. You're being pedantic since I wasn't that clear in my language - because no, most of the time it's not really worth replying to your word vomit in excruciating detail and I really just gloss over it because most of the time, you're wrong, and not worth more than a single post.
    You're just going with generic "pro-science" parts that don't hold up to scrutiny.

    The basics of epidemiology does not change very much over time. How long has it been since we've known that sickness passes easily through bodily fluids, even that which becomes airborne via sneezing a coughing? Exactly. Improvements are always being made to how we study science. The ways in which we approach and study the science does change. Basic principles of how to prevent the spread of disease has not changed in a long time. We've made improvements to existing principles that we've known for at least a century and probably longer. Asian countries were wearing masks decades ago to prevent the spread of the original SARS, the flu, and the common cold. But they weren't wearing masks since the beginning of knowledge that face masks prevent the spread of infectious bacteria and viruses.
    Asian countries did, Western countries didn't - even through multitudes of other global epidemics.

    Was science different between West and Asia?

    Or perhaps mask-wearing was never about science in the first place but about culture?
    Last edited by Shalcker; 2021-04-01 at 11:54 AM.

  20. #100
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    both sides
    The usual fallacy. Here's a simple yes or no question for you. Answering it with anything other than a yes or no is you admitting that you're wrong and you should just stop posting. Do masks, to an extent, prevent the spread of infectious bacteria and viruses?

    Skepticism is good - in moderation.
    This is a true statement. It's just a shame that it was preceded by:

    Science, just like politics, isn't about being completely right each and every time.
    In a general discussion about the philosophy of science, is a basic concept. People who are scientists accept that not everything is completely right. Treating with skepticism and questioning basic principles like aerodynamics on your car or a plane, the forces of acceleration and gravity, nutrition and health concepts, and even 2+2=4 on a daily basis is dumb and would fry your brain. We don't question these things as we are driving our car, eating our lunch, walking around town, and doing our work, because we just simply know they have been tried and tested. Questioning THE MOST BASIC PRINCIPLES in science that we have trusted in for decades if not centuries is dumb.

    I ask again, do masks prevent the spread of infectious diseases to a certain extent, yes or no?


    You're just going with generic "pro-science" parts that don't hold up to scrutiny.
    What principles are we talking about in this thread that don't hold up to scrutiny?

    You're the one who's expanding the discussion because you can't refute the facts about basic epidemiology concepts and are thusly trying to make this about a much broader scope of topics than the discussion is actually about so you can 'technically' be right and win some kind of make believe argument only you are pursuing.

    But let's get back to the OP - Republicans like to hold up the "educated coastal elite" as the enemies of the people. The hilarious part is that every politician who is making up this line is someone who went to an ivy league school and came from millionaire families - and often live near the coasts. It's a common populist trick to ensnare and trick the gullible and weak-minded.

    "Both sides" are not pretending that coastal elites are bad while themselves existing as coastal elites. That is ONE SIDE. "Both sides" are not being dishonest about their origin and creating policy based on said origin. ONE SIDE is doing that.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •