Jump to content

Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Negatory said:

hospitalizations, and deaths will be an order of magnitude higher.

Deaths would be near zero if media and our government (sponsored by Big Pharma) didn't suppress things like zelenko protocol or other methods.  But there is no money in that so here we are... our immune system is turned into a subscription service.    

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Negatory said:

I have officially come full circle based on data. I not sure if I still support current vaccination efforts. All of this data I found - wasn’t given to me by a biased news source.

1) COVID spread is unimpeded by vaccination within months. Numerous studies show that:

03F9596F-3128-4D50-A3F8-4832A3A9B9CC.thumb.jpeg.8b70d1781258dc6c6f0c9bddd7a13332.jpeg

You’ll see that for those age 40-80+, vaccinated folks actually were MORE likely to have the virus.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1022238/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_39.pdf

Source: UK health surveillance. You can look at last week or the next week as well. This is not cherry picked - the data shows the same numbers multiple weeks in a row. Check out the other weeks, you’ll see similar data.

2nd Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y

 

2) The rate of hospitalization and death is similar to that of the flu. No shit. And I used to make fun of everyone who said that.

COVID hospitalizations:

E2FAAA9A-AEBC-4B23-9429-546BE3B5851F.thumb.jpeg.ece5e5faa497f3239a760fb63c58226c.jpeg

COVID DeathsDD8A97B4-2705-4AA7-8578-62150E7D034E.thumb.jpeg.5e00c813e971494794b19e54f37a5723.jpeg

Source: same as above

CDC data on flu hospitalizations/mortality per 100k (couldn’t crop it well on mobile):

A312A95A-BEFE-4BED-8960-22B3D288C7D6.thumb.jpeg.8edc6e7875db9d9fdcab46ae9ae054f3.jpeg

F1F188D8-115F-4681-9C80-5320DBE236AD.thumb.jpeg.2f89ed13c523b77bf1dfacd603504e5c.jpeg

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm

 

So for an average person age 18-49, your risk of hospitalization for COVID is somewhere in the realm of 15-20 per 100000. For 2017-18 flu, the hospitalization rate for that age group was nearly twice as high at 36 per 100000. For death of those 18-49, its maybe twice as bad for Covid, around 2 per 100k, whereas flu was only 0.8. I am starting to lose any motivation to continue vaccination efforts whatsoever for those that are not at risk.

It doesn’t and won’t provide herd immunity. And people without risk factors that are normal ages don’t need it.

The counterpoint will be that it’s for the old. Well, first of all, that counterpoint is already invalid because getting the COVID vaccine as a 40 year old male does literally nothing to protect the old as it has been demonstrated to have virtually no effect on transmission after a few months. So a mandate for those under 50 I think still makes 0 sense.

 

But let’s look at it for those 50+. Hospitalization rate for COVID for those 50+ is on the order of 80-100 per 100000. For 17-18 flu for those over 50 it was on the order of 500+ per 100000. Wtf. For deaths, COVID is on the order of 80 per 100000. Flu was slightly lower, maybe 50 per 100000. But they are way closer than initially thought.

BL: COVID actually has turned into nothing more than a bad flu. And a bad flu that is actually easier on children than the actual bad flu. It’s not even a hyperbole. And we’re discussing additional mandatory boosters for healthy folks age 0-30. Just wanted to say that the data has changed my mind, significantly. It’s actually almost maddening.

i'm having a hard time with this post. Did you get red-pilled? Or am I confusing you with someone else on this board?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

i'm having a hard time with this post. Did you get red-pilled? Or am I confusing you with someone else on this board?

It's not red-pilled. He just took the effort to look at the data (which has pointed towards his conclusions for over a year now) rather than trust the cherry-picked misrepresentations pushed by a large swath of the media and political class.

 

Neg usually has insightful posts. I'm more interested in his analysis as to *why* his conclusions based on easily-accessed data aren't shared by the politicians and authority figures pushing for mandates. I'm also wondering how many liberal-minded people will make the connection between misrepresentation of COVID-19 statistics and the misrepresentation of "racial equity" statistics.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2021 at 2:28 PM, Pooter said:

Don't waste your time, this dude has proved time and time again that appeals to basic facts, statistics, and reason simply don't work on him. 
 

The vaccine is a global conspiracy pushed by a cabal of upper crust liberals, and he and newsmax bimbo Emerald Robinson are the only ones who know the truth.  After trump is reinstated as president from the election that was STOLEN from him, all will be revealed. 

no it doesn't take an intellectual giant to realize something is not right with this vaxx. they have never pushed any vaxx this hard for a virus that has no higher mortality rate the the seasonal flu and most have to be tested to even know if they have it.in fact if it weren't for the TV no one would even know there was a pandemic,yet they're giving out $200 gift cards and lottery's to entice people to take it,use some common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

It's not red-pilled. He just took the effort to look at the data (which has pointed towards his conclusions for over a year now) rather than trust the cherry-picked misrepresentations pushed by a large swath of the media and political class.

Neg usually has insightful posts. I'm more interested in his analysis as to *why* his conclusions based on easily-accessed data aren't shared by the politicians and authority figures pushing for mandates. I'm also wondering how many liberal-minded people will make the connection between misrepresentation of COVID-19 statistics and the misrepresentation of "racial equity" statistics.

Good question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ViperMan said:

i'm having a hard time with this post. Did you get red-pilled? Or am I confusing you with someone else on this board?

I dunno. I looked at data and it didn’t align with my previous beliefs. When I looked into it more, it seemed like some of those beliefs may be incorrect. So now I’m adjusting my beliefs to fit reality.

I still believe some past beliefs were justified. I think there was evidence that the vaccine was effective from a transmission standpoint against non-Delta COVID. And initial evidence of mortality/hospitalization pointed to COVID being worse than it has been recently (1-2% mortality estimates). I am aware that some of those sources could have been biased. But even looking through that lens, I think I still support vaccination in the Dec-Apr timeframe.

What really did it for me, though, was when I was talking to one of my buddies. He is very pro vax, in the medical field as a nurse. We have often talked about anti-vax misinformation. I was pointing out some studies that said that herd immunity may be impossible with delta. And his response was not to actually engage with my points. It was to call me a conspiracy theorist idiot. It was absurd. It probably is similar to experiences you guys have had. Maybe even reminded you of experiences you’ve had talking to me on this forum lol. I hope not, because that attitude that you have to comply with the mainstream viewpoint or you are labeled an idiot is absolutely maddening.

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

I'm more interested in his analysis as to *why* his conclusions based on easily-accessed data aren't shared by the politicians and authority figures pushing for mandates. I'm also wondering how many liberal-minded people will make the connection between misrepresentation of COVID-19 statistics and the misrepresentation of "racial equity" statistics.

I don’t know. I will say the Conservative branch of politics usually does themselves a disservice. They don’t usually present reputable studies. They don’t usually present data in a coherent manner. They rely too much on anecdotal evidence. I think they would have a much better time convincing moderates if they would try to craft more intellectual and less emotionally charged arguments. But, again, that’s coming from months of bias, so I’m probably missing something. I am looking at many statistics presented from “liberal” perspectives with much more scrutiny.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

I dunno. I looked at data and it didn’t align with my previous beliefs. When I looked into it more, it seemed like some of those beliefs may be incorrect. So now I’m adjusting my beliefs to fit reality.

I still believe some past beliefs were justified. I think there was evidence that the vaccine was effective from a transmission standpoint against non-Delta COVID. And initial evidence of mortality/hospitalization pointed to COVID being worse than it has been recently (1-2% mortality estimates). I am aware that some of those sources could have been biased. But even looking through that lens, I think I still support vaccination in the Dec-Apr timeframe.

What really did it for me, though, was when I was talking to one of my buddies. He is very pro vax, in the medical field as a nurse. We have often talked about anti-vax misinformation. I was pointing out some studies that said that herd immunity may be impossible with delta. And his response was not to actually engage with my points. It was to call me a conspiracy theorist idiot. It was absurd. It probably is similar to experiences you guys have had. Maybe even reminded you of experiences you’ve had talking to me on this forum lol. I hope not, because that attitude that you have to comply with the mainstream viewpoint or you are labeled an idiot is absolutely maddening.

I don’t know. I will say the Conservative branch of politics usually does themselves a disservice. They don’t usually present reputable studies. They don’t usually present data in a coherent manner. They rely too much on anecdotal evidence. I think they would have a much better time convincing moderates if they would try to craft more intellectual and less emotionally charged arguments. But, again, that’s coming from months of bias, so I’m probably missing something. I am looking at many statistics presented from “liberal” perspectives with much more scrutiny.

>I was pointing out some studies that said that herd immunity may be impossible with delta. And his response was not to actually engage with my points. It was to call me a conspiracy theorist idiot. It was absurd. It probably is similar to experiences you guys have had. Maybe even reminded you of experiences you’ve had talking to me on this forum lol. I hope not, because that attitude that you have to comply with the mainstream viewpoint or you are labeled an idiot is absolutely maddening.

Welcome to the club bro. Glad to have you. None of us, I promise, are against you. We love you as bros, and hate seeing the lies being told to all of us. You’ve taken a red-pill. Always strive for truth.

 

As for your comment about “conservative” using more studies instead of anecdotes. I wish we could do it, but the problem is so many studies and institutions are corrupt and bullshit. When everything is corrupted, you HAVE to trust your senses. It’s natural to do so. I wish I could pour over truly unbiased data. But when every scientist, NGO, university, government regulatory agency, is getting billions from Big Pharma. / lobbyists / whatever…. All they put out is BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Negatory said:

I dunno. I looked at data and it didn’t align with my previous beliefs. When I looked into it more, it seemed like some of those beliefs may be incorrect. So now I’m adjusting my beliefs to fit reality.

I still believe some past beliefs were justified. I think there was evidence that the vaccine was effective from a transmission standpoint against non-Delta COVID. And initial evidence of mortality/hospitalization pointed to COVID being worse than it has been recently (1-2% mortality estimates). I am aware that some of those sources could have been biased. But even looking through that lens, I think I still support vaccination in the Dec-Apr timeframe.

What really did it for me, though, was when I was talking to one of my buddies. He is very pro vax, in the medical field as a nurse. We have often talked about anti-vax misinformation. I was pointing out some studies that said that herd immunity may be impossible with delta. And his response was not to actually engage with my points. It was to call me a conspiracy theorist idiot. It was absurd. It probably is similar to experiences you guys have had. Maybe even reminded you of experiences you’ve had talking to me on this forum lol. I hope not, because that attitude that you have to comply with the mainstream viewpoint or you are labeled an idiot is absolutely maddening.

I don’t know. I will say the Conservative branch of politics usually does themselves a disservice. They don’t usually present reputable studies. They don’t usually present data in a coherent manner. They rely too much on anecdotal evidence. I think they would have a much better time convincing moderates if they would try to craft more intellectual and less emotionally charged arguments. But, again, that’s coming from months of bias, so I’m probably missing something. I am looking at many statistics presented from “liberal” perspectives with much more scrutiny.

There are batshit crazy nut jobs on both sides of this argument. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Given the relative bias of this forum, I usually find myself arguing a more liberal point of view here. Many of my friends and family might argue that I’m a closet conservative however. Good on you for calling out bullshit when you see it……BUT…I still think there is a good case for continuing to try and push vaccination rates up (note: does not mean I support gov mandates) even though both sides have demonstrated their ability to entrench themselves in their positions regardless of fact or reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Negatory said:

I dunno. I looked at data and it didn’t align with my previous beliefs. When I looked into it more, it seemed like some of those beliefs may be incorrect. So now I’m adjusting my beliefs to fit reality.

I still believe some past beliefs were justified. I think there was evidence that the vaccine was effective from a transmission standpoint against non-Delta COVID. And initial evidence of mortality/hospitalization pointed to COVID being worse than it has been recently (1-2% mortality estimates). I am aware that some of those sources could have been biased. But even looking through that lens, I think I still support vaccination in the Dec-Apr timeframe.

What really did it for me, though, was when I was talking to one of my buddies. He is very pro vax, in the medical field as a nurse. We have often talked about anti-vax misinformation. I was pointing out some studies that said that herd immunity may be impossible with delta. And his response was not to actually engage with my points. It was to call me a conspiracy theorist idiot. It was absurd. It probably is similar to experiences you guys have had. Maybe even reminded you of experiences you’ve had talking to me on this forum lol. I hope not, because that attitude that you have to comply with the mainstream viewpoint or you are labeled an idiot is absolutely maddening.

I don’t know. I will say the Conservative branch of politics usually does themselves a disservice. They don’t usually present reputable studies. They don’t usually present data in a coherent manner. They rely too much on anecdotal evidence. I think they would have a much better time convincing moderates if they would try to craft more intellectual and less emotionally charged arguments. But, again, that’s coming from months of bias, so I’m probably missing something. I am looking at many statistics presented from “liberal” perspectives with much more scrutiny.

Thanks for the analysis. Interesting to get another take.

 

I think what you're missing-- no, missing isn't fair because you got a taste of it from your nurse friend-- what you underestimate is the scale. This wasn't just people having an opinion and disagreeing with you. Or calling you an idiot. This was a coordinated campaign to suppress "wrongthink" by the media-political class. 

 

- the efficacy of masks

- COVID not being high-risk for healthy adults under 50

- the Wuhan lab-leak theory

- the (potential) efficacy of ivermectin and remdesivir

- the president of the United States

- the (now inescapably true) Hunter Biden story

 

The social media platforms literally declared certain speech verboten. Yeah, they are private companies, but they did it to the cheering of elected Democrats. Now there are hearings where elected Democrats are *outraged* that they aren't blocking more. 

 

Democrats, the once-champions of free speech, are now openly (and sometimes violently) against free speech, unless of course you agree with them. And guys like you, without intending to, have fallen right into the trap of well-it-must-be-true-if-the-trumpeters-hate-it.

 

And yes, conservatives have fallen into this trap many times as well. But the pandemic has been overwhelmingly slanted in one direction, with only one side arguing for the *clear* violation of personal liberties while actively misrepresenting the evidence and proudly suppressing opposing (and scientifically supported) views.

 

What's the quote? 

 

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

Everyone seems to have forgotten the ideals behind the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, because they live fat, dumb, and happy little lives free from the horrors of the previous 300,000 years of human existence. Turns out The Matrix was right, and humans can't handle a system where they are (overwhelmingly) free from struggle and misery, so they must create it from nothing.

 

And in our profound lack of persecution we have forgotten what persecution feels like, making us much too comfortable with persecuting those who don't please our delicate sentiments. Of course, the celebrities who have found themselves "cancelled" have become remarkably supportive of free-speech and civil discourse after a career of tarring and feathering conservatives as backwoods, inbred, hateful, racists/sexists/homophobes.

 

Now we have graduated to compelled action *of your children.* The vaccine technology that didn't exist until last year for a disease that primarily kills people hanging on to life by a thread is going to be mandatory for 5 year olds? And you're a domestic terror threat if you go yell at your local school board. You know, like the Boston marathon bombers or Timothy McVeigh.

 

And all this is after being told that the concepts of male and female are actually super complicated and how dare you say otherwise. And actually if you're white you are *necessarily* racist. Under 20 unarmed black men killed by the police represents the greatest threat in America (to say nothing of the 6000/year young black men killed in gang violence). Protests where businesses and literal government buildings are burned to the ground *aren't* riots. The completely wrong predictions of 30 years of global warming models should be ignored because global warming is the single greatest threat to humanity (behind the 20 unarmed black men killed by the police), but don't you dare support nuclear power, which would eliminate carbon emissions entirely from power-generation. And Joe Biden definitely isn't going senile, even though you can look up any video of him from 10 or 20 years ago. And yeah, he definitely got hurt falling in the shower (which is the most old-man shit in the world to do) because he was... wrestling his dog. In the shower. And Hunter Biden, not an artist, but selling paintings for $500k, not a Ukrainian energy executive, but on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, not a Chinese lawyer or lobbyist, but representing a Chinese company, yeah that's all totally kosher but OMG did you see how corrupt the Trump family was? I mean Jared Kushner only negotiated the most meaningful peace agreements in the middle east in decades, and none of the Trump kids were caught doing drugs with (underage?) prostitutes or illegally possessing firearms and throwing them in dumpsters... Oh yeah and that totally fabricated golden showers blackmail tape (literally paid for by the Clinton campaign), and the FBI agents who knowingly lied to the FISA courts, and the House Intelligence Committee representatives and ex-Obama administration pundits who *swore* on TV that there was evidence proving Trump was a Russian catspaw? Oops. Don't forget the border. No crisis there at all. No way the incredible, record-setting surge in illegal crossings had anything to do with the Biden Administration immediately undoing the Trump-era policies and openly advocating for a path to citizenship for any and all illegals. Don't worry about that because there's no inflation! In fact, government deficit spending will actually help *reduce* inflation. What's another 5 trillion?

 

You want to know why your seemingly intelligent conservative friends are losing their minds? Look around.

Edited by Lord Ratner
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TreeA10 said:

More CDC VAERS data. Kind of shocking comparing data totals through last December with all data from 1990. 

https://vaersanalysis.info/2021/10/15/vaers-summary-for-covid-19-vaccines-through-10-8-2021/

“Safe and effective”. “Four legs bad, two legs good.” “We’ve always been at war with Eurasia”. “Follow the science”. “Trust the experts”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

The completely wrong predictions of 30 years of global warming models should be ignored because global warming is the single greatest threat to humanity (behind the 20 unarmed black men killed by the police), but don't you dare support nuclear power, which would eliminate carbon emissions entirely from power-generation. And Joe Biden definitely isn't going senile, even though you can look up any video of him from 10 or 20 years ago. And yeah, he definitely got hurt falling in the shower (which is the most old-man shit in the world to do) because he was... wrestling his dog. In the shower. ...[sic]... Don't worry about that because there's no inflation! In fact, government deficit spending will actually help *reduce* inflation. What's another 5 trillion?

 

You want to know why your seemingly intelligent conservative friends are losing their minds? Look around.

I agree with almost everything you said prior to this point in your response. But, as feedback, I think arguments like the ones I quoted above reach too far. They debase the rest of your valid points, my brain turns off, and I have a hard time getting on board with your other reasonable points. The big picture reason is that these points are not based in evidence; they are based in a comparison to the democratic party/liberals or anecdotal feelings. I know the liberals suck. But just because liberals suck doesn't mean that conservative are doing anything correctly. If your point is that both have issues, then I'm fully on board - I just didn't get that through your argument.

- Data shows that global warming models have actually been very accurate. Yes, you can cherry pick one off studies that were wrong. But large aggregate studies commissioned by places such as the IPCC have done a very good job of predicting the changes that have actually occurred over the last 50 years. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming Why do conservatives argue global warming is not a threat? Because I have never seen any data that actually supports their viewpoint. It's all feelings reminiscent of the folks who said COVID would clear up in Apr 2020 when the weather got warmer. The facts are that the climate is warming, weather events are increasing, and local weather is going to shift significantly. I have absolutely no faith in the ability for national or global capitalistic society to peacefully and effectively rotate where agrarian lands are in the world, so I think that we are in for a bad time. The refusal to engage on the global warming issue from the republican party makes no sense to me.

- Data shows that republicans support nuclear power ~2:1 whereas dems oppose it as a whole. This is a huge issue with the democratic party. But why then do republican controlled governments never produce meaningful legislation, infrastructure, or change?

- Feeling about the president are purely anecdotal. Joe Biden may very well be senile and fragile; in fact, many liberals I know wouldn't argue with that. But it just rings really hollow when conservatives chose not to criticize Trump as a narcissistic, absolutely uncharismatic bully who had similar guffaws when he was in power. And they still don't, in many cases. I don't understand it. I think conservatives would do well to gain support if they would denounce the previous administration's flaws more resolutely. But you probably can't, as it would split party support. Catch-22, I guess, but doesn't make it better. As a bipartisan measure, I would support age limits for office.

- Data shows that inflation is not a single party issue. The only reason the economy didn't collapse during the pandemic in the Trump admin was quantitative easing. $3T in 2 months. Fucking criminal, but maybe it was worth it so that his voters could say that republican policies = "good economy." A huge contributor to current inflation. Inferring that the dems are the root cause behind inflation is dishonest. Biden has put in about $1.2T in the last 9 months, so I'm not saying the democrats are not contributing to the problem. Plus, it all started with Bush with $2T right at the end of his presidency, so does blame for starting these false economies lie there? It would be helpful if we could recognize that both sides, conservative and liberal, contribute to this problem when they use things like QE. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttrends.htm

 

I think what it really comes down to is what I've said all along: It's hard to have meaningful discourse in a two party system where you have to pledge allegiance to one side. I don't think anyone can reasonably support all the views of one of the parties without compromising some personal values or beliefs. That leads to people unfairly judging other folks based on just a few of their beliefs. This, in turn, only reinforces tribalism which leads to us resorting to emotional arguments.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Negatory I think people (like us two for example) actually agree on a lot of things, and we don’t agree on some things, and that’s OK/does not make one person a fill-in-the blank-name-calling. Positive discussion, collaboration, learning, growth, etc. can still occur if we (the “royal we”) simply acknowledge the italicized part. How do we help people release their death grip on identity/tribal politics and realize/live the italicized point above? One would think it’s simple, but it definitely is not. I don’t know how to move stalemates forward in my local community when people are so entrenched in their camp/completely unwilling to even hear the words above, let alone acknowledge their utility. It’s frustrating and continues the divide of “us vs them.”

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brabus said:

@Negatory I think people (like us two for example) actually agree on a lot of things, and we don’t agree on some things, and that’s OK/does not make one person a fill-in-the blank-name-calling. Positive discussion, collaboration, learning, growth, etc. can still occur if we (the “royal we”) simply acknowledge the italicized part. How do we help people release their death grip on identity/tribal politics and realize/live the italicized point above? One would think it’s simple, but it definitely is not. I don’t know how to move stalemates forward in my local community when people are so entrenched in their camp/completely unwilling to even hear the words above, let alone acknowledge their utility. It’s frustrating and continues the divide of “us vs them.”

Sure, totally agree. I think a big portion is not just labeling yourself or another person simply a liberal or a conservative. It’s too constraining and causes you to prejudge everything they say.

1 hour ago, Sim said:

 

scienceizsettled.jpg

I won’t devolve this thread further, but if we cherry-pick outlier opinions out of every year we can find some pretty wild variations for every single issue that exists. Be happy to debate this somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sim said:

 

scienceizsettled.jpg

A couple ponder points:

* We have 1 earth. Judging by our inability to come to a middle ground conclusion about a stupid virus, our ability to up and leave and find a new one isn't looking to hot. Yea maybe a couple people will make it to Mars, ...to live in bubble houses like lab rats. Sounds like a blast...not, just kill me. 

* The earth doesn't give a shit about you, whether your left, right, christian, jew, a human, a monkey, a cute polar bear, saint or murderer. It is a giant space rock that everybody is undeniably screwed without. 

* Lighting things on fire releases heat and C02. Kinda hard to dispute that one. Humans are designed to exist in a certain temp range, hard to dispute that too. So if we light shit on fire, kinda makes sense that if we do it too much, it will likely effect our atmosphere and eventually cause problems. 

*Peak oil, running out soon, not running out soon, doesn't matter. One day we will run out, might as well stop depending on fossil fuels sooner rather than later. 

*If you were a big oil company, wouldn't you be willing to spend massive coin on protecting your market share and financial power. Whatever it takes, just shut those tree hugging nerds up so we can keep giving everyone their fix. 

*The American military has been employed on a large scale in the oil rich regions of the world twice. There are so many other "horrible people/regimes" we could have gone after and killed. So many starving people we could have saved and fed as a display of our American morality, yet we often do nothing. Wierd. 

 

The above is just pure observation and critical thought. US should add as much wind/solar hyrdo capacity as the country needs, back fill with nuclear/natural gas during high peak/lulls in the wind/solar. I'm down with you to skip the bug eating tho. Or we can keep letting those West Virginian senators keep screwing over their own coal workers by convincing them that coal will power the world forever rather than retraining them as turbine technicians. 

Wind turbines/nuclear power are like aircraft carriers. They should make you feel like you're punching terrorists in the face. 

 

 

Edited by hockeydork
clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Negatory said:

I agree with almost everything you said prior to this point in your response. But, as feedback, I think arguments like the ones I quoted above reach too far. They debase the rest of your valid points, my brain turns off, and I have a hard time getting on board with your other reasonable points. The big picture reason is that these points are not based in evidence; they are based in a comparison to the democratic party/liberals or anecdotal feelings. I know the liberals suck. But just because liberals suck doesn't mean that conservative are doing anything correctly. If your point is that both have issues, then I'm fully on board - I just didn't get that through your argument.

- Data shows that global warming models have actually been very accurate. Yes, you can cherry pick one off studies that were wrong. But large aggregate studies commissioned by places such as the IPCC have done a very good job of predicting the changes that have actually occurred over the last 50 years. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming Why do conservatives argue global warming is not a threat? Because I have never seen any data that actually supports their viewpoint. It's all feelings reminiscent of the folks who said COVID would clear up in Apr 2020 when the weather got warmer. The facts are that the climate is warming, weather events are increasing, and local weather is going to shift significantly. I have absolutely no faith in the ability for national or global capitalistic society to peacefully and effectively rotate where agrarian lands are in the world, so I think that we are in for a bad time. The refusal to engage on the global warming issue from the republican party makes no sense to me.

- Data shows that republicans support nuclear power ~2:1 whereas dems oppose it as a whole. This is a huge issue with the democratic party. But why then do republican controlled governments never produce meaningful legislation, infrastructure, or change?

- Feeling about the president are purely anecdotal. Joe Biden may very well be senile and fragile; in fact, many liberals I know wouldn't argue with that. But it just rings really hollow when conservatives chose not to criticize Trump as a narcissistic, absolutely uncharismatic bully who had similar guffaws when he was in power. And they still don't, in many cases. I don't understand it. I think conservatives would do well to gain support if they would denounce the previous administration's flaws more resolutely. But you probably can't, as it would split party support. Catch-22, I guess, but doesn't make it better. As a bipartisan measure, I would support age limits for office.

- Data shows that inflation is not a single party issue. The only reason the economy didn't collapse during the pandemic in the Trump admin was quantitative easing. $3T in 2 months. Fucking criminal, but maybe it was worth it so that his voters could say that republican policies = "good economy." A huge contributor to current inflation. Inferring that the dems are the root cause behind inflation is dishonest. Biden has put in about $1.2T in the last 9 months, so I'm not saying the democrats are not contributing to the problem. Plus, it all started with Bush with $2T right at the end of his presidency, so does blame for starting these false economies lie there? It would be helpful if we could recognize that both sides, conservative and liberal, contribute to this problem when they use things like QE. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttrends.htm

 

I think what it really comes down to is what I've said all along: It's hard to have meaningful discourse in a two party system where you have to pledge allegiance to one side. I don't think anyone can reasonably support all the views of one of the parties without compromising some personal values or beliefs. That leads to people unfairly judging other folks based on just a few of their beliefs. This, in turn, only reinforces tribalism which leads to us resorting to emotional arguments.

On global warming you are simply incorrect. The models from the late 90s and early 2000s all had to be massively revised to fit the data, and the data itself had to be revised to fit the temperature record. Far too much to go into here, but suffice it to say that a model is not measured by how well it matches the past, but by how well it predicts the future. The ipcc has only recently gotten to some predictions that are remotely feasible, and those predictions have been revised downward so much that the once catastrophic threat of global warming is now largely going to be a matter of human migration. So in other words, no change from the last 300,000 years.

 

But that's not really the point anyways, the point is that if you are going to portray CO2 based climate change is the greatest threat facing humanity, then being against nuclear power is an impossible to reconcile position. And as you said, the Democrats have been 100% against nuclear. It took a while for me to realize why, but it's the anti-human strain of environmentalism that has taken over the cause. That's also another conversation, right now we're just going to stick with the gas-lighting inconsistencies.

 

As I said, this problem is not limited to liberals. I have been rather vocal about criticizing Trump's many character flaws. And it drives me nuts when conservatives defend him as a family man, or somehow a good person. He's not. But in the same breath, anybody arguing that his administration's policies were somehow equal to his character is simply being disingenuous. And even today I have yet to find a liberal who decries Trump as the most dangerous president in US history who can list off any meaningful policy positions that were outside of the standard conservative worldview. 

 

On inflation, I never made an argument that the liberals caused it. These are usual political discussions. The point is the outright denial that it exists. Or that, now that we admit it exists, that it's somehow a good thing.

 

Your last paragraph is spot on. The average voter simply doesn't have the bandwidth to give a shit about issues that aren't affecting their daily life. Somehow the political class figured out a way to turn politics into team sports, so instead of voting for the two or three issues that affect you and your family directly during that specific election, now the voters will actively vote against their interests in order to support the team. This is why we see the same states vote the same way every election now, when 40 years ago presidents would routinely win the vast majority of the electoral college. It's troubling, and I don't have a great answer.

 

But people like you need to spend more time talking to liberals just like people like me need to spend more time talking to conservatives. And convincing them to talk to each other more. There was a great balance with all of this in the past, because politicians have always tried to divide us, but social media changed everything, making it possible to isolate yourself from opposing views and thus caricature the opposition in ways that were never feasible.

Edited by Lord Ratner
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Your last paragraph is spot on. The average voter simply doesn't have the bandwidth to give a shit about issues that aren't affecting their daily life. Somehow the political class figured out a way to turn politics into team sports, so instead of voting for the two or three issues that affect you and your family directly during that specific election, now the voters will actively vote against their interests in order to support the team. This is why we see the same States both the same way every election now, when 40 years ago presidents would routinely win the vast majority of the electoral college. It's troubling, and I don't have a great answer.

 

Not to derail this thread further, but the current proposal to have the IRS track all inflow and outflow of every American’s bank account is a perfect example of this.  
 

Every person in this country, Democrat/Republican/Independent, rich/poor, etc… should be wildly upset at this giant overreach of government power and violation of the 4th Amendment. Particularly because it’s impact will be mostly felt by poor to middle class Americans that do not have the financial resources to track and record every single expenditure they make, both business and personal. Yet not a peep from the left becuase it’s from “their team”. 
 

Note: Yes, there are also examples of overt tribalism from the right too, but this is an example happening right this very second. It would be a perfect issue to unify people over against absolutely asinine government policy, but instead it will become another us vs them. 
 


 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>
 
When everything is corrupted, you HAVE to trust your senses. It’s natural to do so.


This is literally why some people think the earth is flat.

The only good part is our period of history isn’t the only one with stupid people. Turns out they’re everywhere, all the time.

~Bendy


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Bender said:

 


This is literally why some people think the earth is flat.

The only good part is our period of history isn’t the only one with stupid people. Turns out they’re everywhere, all the time.

~Bendy


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

 

Because flat-earthers exist mean one shouldn’t trust their senses in the face of a corrupted medical/federal-government hegemony?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More CDC VAERS data. Kind of shocking comparing data totals through last December with all data from 1990. 
https://vaersanalysis.info/2021/10/15/vaers-summary-for-covid-19-vaccines-through-10-8-2021/
Wow... yeah my kids (less than 12) aren't getting the vaccine when it comes out and God help the schools if they decide to mandate it. Of course you never see headlines on the news saying you have a 175 times greater risk of dying from the covid vaccine than the flu vaccine.

Do any of the die-hard proponents of the C19 vax think this is concerning? I'd like to read your thoughts.
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...