Jump to content

Negatory

Supreme User
  • Posts

    671
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Posts posted by Negatory

  1. Many of your guys' primary response to this f&#ed up day is to glaze your eyeballs over and just say "well, dems did bad things too, soooooooo." What was that Ghandi quote? An eye for an eye or something? Who cares, he was probably a lib.

     

    • Upvote 1
  2. 14 minutes ago, Blue said:

    Anyone else expected that the US Capitol would have been a little more......defended?

    I mean, on today of all days, I would have expected the place to be guarded like Fort Knox.  Instead, it looks like the halls of Congress have been stormed by the clientele from a Waffle House.

    gettyimages-1230455089_custom-44987009c8a8ba07ac0ea912c9fd8bf07a13542d-s800-c85.jpg

    image.thumb.png.86b1ffb1cc8a28e8bbf76f0b990e76aa.png

  3. No one's arguing that those BLM rioters are pieces of shit. No one. That's not the point.

    A key difference between the two is that the president of the United States was not the figurehead, orator, and leader sparking any of those riots.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 8
  4. On 1/2/2021 at 12:17 PM, brabus said:

    Well for one people like MacKenzie Scott probably wouldn’t have donated $9B. Yeah there are some “filthy rich” people, but many of them donate shitloads of money, collectively provide millions of jobs, etc. They may be “selfish” in your eyes, but that doesn’t mean they’re not simultaneously contributing a substantial amount to our economy and way of life. Bottom line - not a zero sum game and we need those people far more than we don’t need them. 

    On another note, doesn't look like your guys' guesses about billionaire philanthropy were based very much in reality.

    https://observer.com/2021/01/billionaires-philanthropy-record-low-2020-bezos-elon-musk/

    BUT JEFF BEZOS MAX A TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATION OF $10B TO THE... Bezos Fund.

    • Upvote 1
  5. Can’t say I expected it to happen, but the R party has really imploded these last 2 months. Many of you expected Trump to throw a wrench in traditional politics and he did - he fractured voting confidence and the base for Rs as he tried to burn down the establishment. At the same time, he’s galvanized some more fringe voters to vote dem. It’s funny, because in Nov it was relatively understood that Rs were going to be able to keep the senate if they could just hold themselves together. You can’t argue that you didn’t get what you voted for.

    Incoming: senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The mayor’s lost control.

  6. 16 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

    You’re the one advocating for communism and posting anecdotal feel good stories as “evidence” of science. I challenge your relevance outside of trolling the community. 

    You're in the wrong thread, but fine. Advocating for a revision of tax structures that have been bad for a majority of Americans, as evidenced by multiple sources that I cited, is not communism. In fact, it was addressed in the framework of capitalist America, and even had precedence in American policy, again, as referenced by my sources. Calling everything you disagree with communism isn't productive for intellectual discourse, but it sure makes you feel morally superior. 

    This is what people look like when they call everything that they don't agree with "communism," even when the policies literally have nothing aligned with that form of government:

    XMjLkXj.jpg.8dd37faf260a73ea0a995969f5e29de8.jpg

    Also, this isn't relevant to this thread or conversation, so I will not address this again here.

  7. 3 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

    UK mask.PNG

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/15/most-brits-just-wont-wear-face-masks-heres-why.html

    Mask mandates don't work, I agree with that. Because a large portion of people don't follow them anymore. That's why the whole US is going up in flames while we "lockdown." 

    But that doesn't mean masks and lockdowns don't work, whatsoever. Realistically, if you want a good look at what happens when people wear masks and social distance, look at a time when people actually had high compliance: March-May. You'll note that, almost everywhere in the world, cases decreased significantly - that's what happens.

    Am I saying that is tenable? No. We can't lock down and literally not interact with each other indefinitely. But your guys' arguments and correlation graphs that aren't related are bogus and unscientific.

  8. 14 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

    maybe we should let healthy LOW RISK people ( < 99.99% chance of dying) back into the economy VOLUNTARILY and if you feel at risk YOU isolate at home until a vaccine gets into your arm?

    there is zero evidence the lockdowns work or masking works...i'm talking PRACTICAL evidence not some lab study.

    there IS LOTS OF EVIDENCE the lockdowns are KILLING people's businesses and lives.

    masks are the new virtue signaling

    Actually there’s tons. Because you specified practical evidence ONLY, here’s but one example:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/hair-stylists-infected-covid19-face-masks.html
     

    If you would like me to get you the scientific evidence, I can do that as well.

     

    • Upvote 1
  9. A lot of pseudo science in here. @pawnman is right, and it's not apples and oranges. Masks do work, because the virus hasn't been demonstrated to be an aerosol that has to be filtered out at the nm level. They primarily work by blocking large droplets by sick people wearing them and, therefore, not emitting large droplets. Large droplets aren't just emitted from yelling. They're emitted from breathing. They're emitted from talking. They're emitted from existing. You ever gone outside in the cold and "seen your breath?" Those are large droplets. They are emitted ALL THE TIME. Let's establish some facts as of our current understanding:

    1) "no study has demonstrated actual clinical evidence of the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2"

    2) "the overwhelming majority of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is via large respiratory droplets as conclusively demonstrated by contact tracing studies, cluster investigations, the lack of infection spread in hospital settings with universal masking protocols and the low estimated R"

    Source: https://www.pennmedicine.org/updates/blogs/penn-physician-blog/2020/august/airborne-droplet-debate-article

    3) Masks that are not N95s very effectively block the vast majority of large droplets. This study that came out shows that simple surgical masks or even single-layer cotton masks are extremely effective at stopping large droplets.

    Source: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.201663

  10. 23 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

    So start one.  Let me know how the economics work out for you. 
     

    be the change you want to see... or some such shit 

    Your point doesn’t make sense. Almost all organizations are already like that. They aren’t single paid single run organizations.

    The point was the slippery slope fallacy.

  11. Yeah, but a pilot in a cyber role probably won’t have the tactical understanding to be truly excellent when compared to someone that was actually trained properly. In fact, I could see that as part of why we aren’t as good in some aspects. I’m wondering how many homegrown cyber folks end up in leadership.

     

  12. I am not disagreeing with many of your points. And I, along with many of you, are plenty well off. I get that. No shit we all have Roth IRAs and TSP and retirement and stable socialized jobs that allow us, very fortuitously, to be some of the lucky people in society. But most people can't, and that's the problem.

    To just say there is no limit to wealth in society and entirely detach from reality by saying that how much the top 1% makes isn't connected to how much the working class makes is asinine. Because if they had incentives to give that money to workers as opposed to stock buybacks or letting it sit in stock options, maybe society would be better?

    Also, it's not like the system we have today has been around for very long, yet you guys talk like it's holy and could never be altered. Since 1913 to now, the top end capital gains tax has ranged from 13%-77%. The personal income tax for the highest bracket has ranged from less than 10% to greater than 90%.

    My argument is that Reaganomics and the policies that were implemented in the last 40 years have disproportionately helped the rich while making it harder to live and generate wealth for the vast majority of future and younger generations. That is the argument I want you to address.

    For example, Millenials only hold 3% of total US wealth, whereas baby boomers held 21% if you go back in time to when they were the same age.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-less-wealth-net-worth-compared-to-boomers-2019-12

    Purchasing power hasn't change at all in decades.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

    Inflation adjusted home costs have risen nearly 40% in the last few decades.

    https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices/

    Education costs have tripled since 1980, after adjusting for inflation.

    https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college

    These all began their upward trajectory after we decided that horse and sparrow (which literally comes from the sparrow getting to eat out of the horse's shit) economics (reaganomics) were what we were going to do as a nation.

    My argument is that these are real, society defining, problematic issues that we need to address. We can fix some of these problems with the right market and governmental incentives/tax structure. Or you guys can keep hanging on to republican/neo-liberal fiscal conservatism which just saw over 20% of all circulating US dollars created just this year along with $4T in debt and the Fed swelling to over $7T. This is a crisis that you guys aren't addressing because your TSP appeared to go up in value, and I want to know why or when you think the current system will improve.

     

    Finally, here's an additional hypothetical to one of your points: Why not just give the trillions directly to billionaires and the top 0.1% only because they're the "job creators" (actually pretty close to what already happens with large company bailouts of people like Boeing that just did stock buybacks over the last 10 years; socialize losses, privatize gains, right)? Don't give literally anyone else money, especially working class. Those billionaires, by the logic in this thread, will create all the jobs and totally donate to charity and fix the roads and trickle all over society if they just have a little more money.

    • Like 5
    • Upvote 2
×
×
  • Create New...