Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 2, 2020 at 4:21 PM in reply to: How exactly would the military “dominate the battlespace” #817819
zk
Participant[quote=utcsox][quote=scaredyclassic][quote=utcsox][quote=NeetaT]No, sorry guys, I made it all up. The information came from official police reports. Yes, the police, the people you guys hate. FAKE police documents! Yes! Sorry!
Oh no, it’s me, the right wing nut-case![/quote]
To be fair, I never think of you as a right wing nut-case. I view you as a normal right wing person.[/quote]
would have been nice to see bernie madoff get choked out on the street when he got arrested[/quote]
Securities fraud is not a capital offense.[/quote]
Neither is aggravated robbery.
Participant[quote=NeetaT]No, sorry guys, I made it all up. The information came from official police reports. Yes, the police, the people you guys hate. FAKE police documents! Yes! Sorry!
Oh no, it’s me, the right wing nut-case![/quote]
I didn’t say you made anything up. I said you made a weird, pointless, tangential jab that sort of alluded to something but didn’t really make any sense.
Prove me wrong, Neeta. How did that post make any sense? What, exactly, did you mean by that post?
Participant[quote=NeetaT]No,I will not say his name “George Floyd”.
But!!!!!
I will say their names: Aracely Henriquez, Angel Negrete,
Amanda Negrete, and Juan Botello.These are the people that George Floyd robbed at gunpoint and caused years of PTSD in their lives.
Thank you![/quote]
Has anyone else noticed how many rwnj posts on social media now are similar to this one? Kind of weird, pointless, tangential jabs that sort of allude to something but don’t really make any sense? I see a lot of that now, now that they’re just so wrong about so many things that they can’t even make a cogent case for their stances.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]guilty on the lesser, maybe assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury. but no murder. [/quote]
Maybe. Still, I think he’ll get convicted of murder. And if not, mayhem. Not “he’ll be convicted of mayhem.” But “(if he’s not convicted of murder,) there will be mayhem.”
Participant[quote=PCinSD]
It appears that people who dislike Fox watch it all the time. And then go online to complain about Fox. There are many more news options available for those who don’t like Fox. Take your pick and change the channel. In the meantime, Fox thanks you for your support.[/quote]
People who dislike fox and watch it anyway obviously aren’t watching it to get news. And, by definition, they’re not watching it because they like it. They’re watching it to keep track of whatever nonsense propaganda fox is spreading or to understand their friends/relatives who fall for whatever fox is spewing or for other, similar reasons.
I occasionally watch fox just to make sure that I’m not wrong when I say that it’s propaganda. It usually doesn’t take more than a few seconds before it’s quite obvious that I’m not.
Of course people watch fox and then go and complain about it online. Fox is the largest, most important piece of the right-wing propaganda machine. It is a great danger to our country, and to ignore it would be like ignoring the coronavirus or global warming or donald trump.
ParticipantI would be surprised if he were found not guilty.
But if he is found not guilty, I would be surprised if the ensuing civil unrest is not far worse than after the Rodney King verdicts. Like L.A. after the King verdicts, but nationwide.
Participant[quote=svelte]
Even if it hadn’t paid off, I’d still be a rebel because that’s what is deep in my soul. Lead, follow, or get the F out of the way.[/quote]
I don’t think that quote fits a rebel at all. In fact, the first time I heard that quote as a teenager, I called it the “herd mentality” philosophy. According to that philosophy, nobody who is doing anything would be doing his own thing. They’d either be leading a crowd or part of a crowd. A rebel does his own thing. He’s certainly not following anyone. He’s not getting out of the way. He’s not really leading anyone, either. He’s doing his own thing, regardless of whether anyone else agrees with him or follows him or not.
Some rebels are leaders, but only because others choose to follow them. But that’s not their goal. Their goal is to do what they want, indifferent as to whether anyone follows. A “rebel leader,” i.e. leader of rebels, isn’t really a rebel at all. Not as an individual. He’s not just part of a movement, he’s the leader of it.
Also left out of that philosophy is the lone wolf. A close relative of the rebel, he more quietly goes about making the world a better place (or worse, or whatever his deal is), and he doesn’t need anybody’s help doing it. He’s not in your face, but he won’t “get out of the way” if you try to push him off of doing what he’s doing. He does all this without concern over what others think, just like the rebel. But maybe less boldly or shrilly or noticeably.
Participant[quote=outtamojo]Actually they were outnumbered 4 Novembers ago by about 3 million- which is why the voter suppression engine has to be running all the time.[/quote]
So true.
Between propaganda, voter suppression, and the republican electoral college advantage, democrats are going to have to work awful hard to win this election.
Participant[quote=pinkflamingo]They can’t even admit that something so egregious is wrong coming from a president.
[/quote]
Yeah, the true believers (and there are tens of millions of them) cannot be reasoned with.
That’s the worst part. They’ll never change their minds because all the objective truth in the world can’t get them to see the tiniest bit of the error of their beliefs.
I don’t think they want to see the truth. I don’t think they want to see the error of their beliefs. I think they’re in denial the same way that an alcoholic is in denial or a person just diagnosed with terminal illness can be in denial. They want so badly to believe – that they can still drink normally or that they’re not going to die this year or that they are in the righteous tribe – that their mind just refuses to accept the truth. And any evidence pointing to the truth is immediately and completely dismissed without analysis or inspection.
How does one deal with that?
I guess all we can do is outnumber them this November.
Participant[quote=svelte]I don’t care much what my image is. Or what my country’s image is.
[/quote]
You don’t have to care what your country’s image is. But your country definitely should.
If your country has an image of being untrustworthy, it will be significantly harder to deal with other countries.
If your country is suspected of planning a first strike, the other side might beat you to it.
If your country has an image of not giving a shit about other countries, other countries are less likely to come to your aid.
Et cetera.
If a country thinks it can go it alone, then it doesn’t have to worry about such things. Actually, that’s not right. If a country actually can go it alone and is willing to give up the benefits of cooperating with other countries, then it doesn’t have to worry about such things
Being a good person or a good country and not worrying about your image is one thing.
Being a bad country or a bad person and doing bad shit because you don’t care about your image is something else. As an individual, you’re exposed to thousands of people, and probably a couple will like you no matter what kind of schmuck you are. And, as long as it’s not enough to get you fired from your job, you’ll be ok. Countries are different. There are only a couple hundred countries, and only a few dozen that really have the potential to be significant partners. So being a piece of shit country that doesn’t give a shit about its image is likely to end with your country in a bad place.
ParticipantMy 2 cents:
America can easily be broken. Well, turned into a more disgusting, more violent, more reviled version of a once-world-dominating but now second-rate country like The U.K.
The difference is it won’t take very long for that to happen to us, given our leadership and our culture.
On a longer time frame (but not that long – say, 40 or 50 years), if we keep electing “leaders” like trump, we could be much, much worse off than that. Our only hope of avoiding that fate is – and don’t hold your breath for this – for common sense to prevail among the American people. For Americans to stop believing the propaganda that tells them that “trump only lies about little things” and “trump is trustworthy and honest” and “Hillary runs a pedophile ring” and “Joe Scarborough murdered his assistant” and “Obamagate is the worst political scandal in American history” and “trump was completely exonerated by the Mueller report” and the million other emotionally-manipulative bits of propaganda that cause otherwise-normal people to support one of the most vile and incompetent human beings ever to “lead” a country.
Participant[quote=Hobie]
Convince me this is not a tactic to keep economy depressed for political reasons.[/quote][quote=Hobie]zk: My original thread ended with a rhetorical question. You kinda missed that and jumped into the weeds.
[/quote]
Ha! So very trumpesque. Say something completely ridiculous and, when called on it, claim it was “sarcasm” or, in your case, “a rhetorical question.”
[quote=Hobie]
People will accept some level of risk. Let people choose their own level of risk.
[/quote]
That’s where your whole argument falls apart. Any time a person increases his risk of getting the virus, he increases the risk of others getting the virus. So he’s choosing others’ risk for them.
As to your Venn diagram, yes, there would be a lot of contacts involved. There would be a lot of quarantining. The ideal time to have done it would’ve been March or even February when there were a lot fewer cases. That didn’t happen at the time because our president thought it would go away “like a miracle.” It is very late in the game to start. But it’s better than not starting at all.
Participant[quote=Hobie][quote=zk][quote=Hobie]Bad economy helps elect a non-incumbent. That is my point.[/quote]
So you have no evidence, then? You just made a wild assumption and you’re convinced of it until convinced otherwise?[/quote]
Why don’t we hear of any flu statistics? Why is there not a side by side comparison of number of flu vs. corona stats? Just sayin'[/quote]
Just sayin’ what? That you can’t come up with any reasonable responses to what I said so you completely change the subject?
Ok.
If flu stats and covid stats were understood by the general public the way they’re understood by scientists, you wouldn’t want them to be hearing about them.
I wrote this on another thread:
When comparing Covid-19 death rate with influenza death rate, virtually everybody (including me) has been using a 0.1% death rate for the flu.
0.1% is actually the case fatality rate for the flu, not the infection fatality rate for the flu.
“Case fatality rate” means deaths per confirmed case. “Infection fatality rate” means deaths per actual infection. Because we don’t test everybody for these infections, the infection fatality rate can only be estimated. Also, the case fatality rate will necessarily be higher than the infection fatality rate.
Technically, the case fatality rate for Covid-19 is some very-high number (because we test so few people) that means nothing right now. But the estimated infection fatality rate of Covid-19 seems to be around 0.5% to 0.8%. The infection fatality rate of influenza is estimated between 0.025% and 0.05%.
That makes infection with the novel coronavirus somewhere between 10 and 32 times deadlier than infection with an influenza virus.
And don’t forget, it’s also wildly more contagious than influenza.
Also, reading this may help you understand more about influenza numbers and about the differences between influenza and covid:
This is from the second article:
If we compare, for instance, the number of people who died in the United States from COVID-19 in the second full week of April to the number of people who died from influenza during the worst week of the past seven flu seasons (as reported to the CDC), we find that the novel coronavirus killed between 9.5 and 44 times more people than seasonal flu. In other words, the coronavirus is not anything like the flu: It is much, much worse.
Remember, there were lock downs in place a lot of places during that time frame for covid. But not for influenza during its worst week of the last 7 years. There obviously would have been far more deaths from covid than during that week without the lock downs. So it’s possible the numbers are even worse than that.
ParticipantWhat a lot of people don’t seem to understand is that testing and contact tracing are steps towards opening the economy without unnecessary deaths.
Opening the economy without trying to reduce the spread of the coronavirus has the potential to cause two problems. For the economy. One, a lot of people (people who understand how contagious and dangerous the virus is, not only to themselves but to others) will continue to stay home. Two, a lot of people will get sick and die. That’s not good for the economy, either. When people start dying at higher rates (which is virtually inevitable if we open the economy without the necessary precautions and restrictions), then more people will want to stay at home. Not good for the economy.
If you want the economy to improve, you should be rooting for testing and contact tracing.
-
AuthorPosts