|
Sander Rossel wrote: "Women should be treated equal to men and have all the same rights and opportunities and we, as a society, should look out for inequalities and think on how to solve them." - actual left
Most people, left and right.
But yes, I get your point about the extremes. However, in the US in particular, since the majority of our media is very, very far left most people that are even a little left end up with extreme left views because they only listen to the media, they don't actually look at the facts.
First one I remember in relation to Trump is when he said Mexico is sending their worst here and then the media reported that Trump thinks all Mexicans are rapists and criminals. First off, he didn't even come close to saying that. Secondly, a normal human being would think, "really? He thinks all Mexicans are rapists? That can't be right." But no, most left people just believed the reports/lies from the news.
So, I do get your point and for the most part agree, but the reality seems to be that "left" people have lost their mind. 
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: but the reality seems to be that "left" people have lost their mind
I want to disagree, but for some reason I'm inclined to agree with you 
It's probably not like the extreme left are crazier than the extreme right, just that they are more mainstream and so are more visible.
On a side note, Trump saying that Mexicans are sending their worst is also polarizing and damaging.
It certainly sends out a message to all American Mexicans, good and bad, and the people around them.
It's one thing if you or I make such a statement, it's something else when one of the most powerful people on the planet does it.
And as you say, there are plenty of dumb people who believe him and follow him.
I know you're a Trump supporter, but I can't believe you would think of American Mexicans as "their worst" (yes, I hold you in that high esteem  ), even though there seem to be some problems.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Trump saying that Mexicans are sending their worst is also polarizing and damaging.
Yes, he certainly does not act Presidential when speaking. I'm not sure there are many from either side that would disagree with that.
However, it speaks to how screwed up our politics have been for a long time. One of the reasons Trump got elected IS because he speaks like that, he doesn't sanitize his language to spare feelings. And a lot of us loved to see a politician not hide from the facts to spare feelings.
Sander Rossel wrote: I know you're a Trump supporter,
I voted for Trump because I would not vote for Hillary. But I do like how Trump keeps calling the media out on their lies. I love that.
Sander Rossel wrote: I can't believe you would think of American Mexicans as "their worst"
I hope you can't believe it. Trump didn't even say what you just said. I'm not sure if you're being funny or unintentionally proving my point about the left.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: First one I remember in relation to Trump is when he said Mexico is sending their worst here
ZurdoDev wrote: Sander Rossel wrote: I can't believe you would think of American Mexicans as "their worst"
I hope you can't believe it. Trump didn't even say what you just said.
You just said he said that 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: You just said he said that
Not even close. I guess you are proving my point about how the left's brains work. Very interesting.
You are saying that every single Mexican American was sent here by Mexico. Clearly that is not the case. Most, if not all, came on their own. They weren't sent. See the difference?
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: It's probably not like the extreme left are crazier than the extreme right, just that they are more mainstream and so are more visible.
It's not so much that they are "mainstream", it is because the left controls the media and big tech, and they sensor their opponents so left-wing views are the only ones heard. People with other views just leave the debate as they get censored\banned etc and now you have platforms where only one view is allowed to be expressed. As the censorship is one-sided and the rules are not applied to the left, those views get more and more extreme so now not only is that platform only a home to left-wing opinions, but to extreme ones too. Look at how they treated Trump's "when the looting starts" tweet. How long do you think it would take to find 1,000 tweets directly calling for violence against Trump supporters, cops etc?
Sander Rossel wrote: On a side note, Trump saying that Mexicans are sending their worst is also polarizing and damaging.
He didn't say that, though.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: He didn't say that, though.
I'm not sure what he said, I'm just saying what ZurdoDev said he said.
Trump has said bad and generalizing things about Mexico and Mexicans though so for my point it doesn't even matter what he said exactly.
F-ES Sitecore wrote: the left controls the media and big tech
Yet somehow Trump is president
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Trump has said bad and generalizing things about Mexico and Mexicans though
I'd ask you to quote some but I know that's a fruitless endevour.
Sander Rossel wrote: Yet somehow Trump is president
Because a lot of people can (thankfully) think for themselves. Why do you think Dems were shocked Hillary didn't win? Because everything they have been exposed to said that she would, that Trump was bad and everyone hated him. Nope...just fake news. What's funny is that they're still doing it only now with Biden. Talk about not learning anything.
|
|
|
|
|
exactly 
|
|
|
|
|
Where I live, a county directly attached to and east of NYC, we've had no violence and so far, a total of one arrest between my county and the one east of it. In fact, yesterday, there were police with a banner marching with the demonstrator. They didn't lose there perspective: they're protesting a callous and cold blooded murder.
So what's the difference? If you paid close attention, some of the looters were well organized, including vehicles. Similarly, Molotov cocktails don't spontaneously appear at a demonstration (or anywhere else). The looting and vandalism were carefully premeditated. The demonstrations were used as cover. (I can think of a group or two in the middle east who use civilians for cover, too, and hope for civilian casualties to further their cause).
The demonstrators are on the right track - the massive variety of races represented, not just as tokens but as major components should make that obvious.
Infiltration of demonstrations is already old-school. Holding up your groups signs in front of an unrealated crowd for a photo-op is common. Let's say as many as 1% of the demonstrators were in really "in it for the money" - we have a very bad situation surrounded by innocents.
The looters and vandals should be beaten to unrecognizable bloody pulps by the demonstrators. Only theoretically, I'm afraid, as that too would just become a cover for settling scores. Politicians blustering about what to do, while well hidden in, for example, a bunker, is pure Bullshit - when you do something and actually are willing to take responsibility for your own actions - then I might listen. And, of course, both the far left and far right have agendas that profit from chaos.
Some want anarchy. Some want a race war. Both want bloodshed to use for recruiting. Of only we could put them together and see who's left standing (and then we shoot them and the world would indeed be a better place).
Reread paragraph one as many times as necessary.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Reread paragraph one as many times as necessary.
You're ok, if I want to read emotive lies presented as fact to foster faux outrage I'll go on twitter.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: dating is now illegal
No, nothing's changed since the start of lockdown there. You must maintain social distancing with people outside of your household. Not hard to understand, not inconsistent. What's changed is that you can now meet up to 5 others from outside your househould in an outdoor setting. As for on-site support, that's always been allowed if it's classified as "essential" - so just as plumbers have been allowed into your home to fix your pipework, an IT tech can come in to fix your network - so long as you stay 6' apart.
In reality, people are increasingly ignoring social distancing, wherever it may be. Increasingly large groups are gathering for parties, demonstrations and relaxation. The beaches are full because there's nowhere else to go. Bizarrely, your kids can now go back to school and mix indoors with a dozen or more households but their friends cannot come home with them. I can travel 150 miles to the beach for the day, but I can't visit my second home there to check its security.
There are some anomalies but as things relax here they will get ironed out. Unless the ignoring of social distancing results in a significant increase in cases, which I fear it will, and a further lockdown is imposed. The biggest problem as I see it is that the "wash your hands" message has got totally drowned out in arguments about which political "celeb" went to see who and why.
Anyway, have you never heard of e-dating?
|
|
|
|
|
DerekT-P wrote: nothing's changed since the start of lockdown there.
Legally, yes it has. It was just passed on Monday. No indoors groups of 2 or more (so groups basically) unless they are from the same household. That is new.
DerekT-P wrote: results in a significant increase in cases, which I fear it will,
I doubt it. We've had large gatherings in places and the numbers have not gone up significantly. I think most people were likely already exposed to this virus before lock downs even happened. History will laugh at us.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
It all down to R-Naught: if it's less than 1, there won't be another spike. If it's greater than 1, there will. People getting together in groups will increase R-Naught becuase one person with it - but displaying no symptoms (or deliberatly ignoring the symptoms they do have) - can infect many very easily. This thing is ridiculously easy to catch!
History will not laugh at us: it will shake it's head and sadly say "Why did they let so many people die when they could have done something?"
The world wide estimated death count is 383,109, but that's a very low estimate: the UK for example has 60,000 Excess Deaths (the number of deaths above what is expected during the same time period in a "normal year") compared to an "official figure" of 40,000 COVID related deaths. And in a "normal year" many, many people die of car- and work- related accidents which just haven;t been happening during lockdown, so that's probably higher as well ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: This thing is ridiculously easy to catch!
Not from my experience. We're out in public every single day and never worn a mask. In fact, 66% of Hospitalizations Statewide Are People Staying Home[^]
OriginalGriff wrote: but that's a very low estimate:
Actually, it's a very high estimate. Nearly every day there is a new report of how cases are not being counted correctly. Just one example, Washington health officials: Gunshot victims counted as COVID-19 deaths[^]
The counts are being intentionally inflated to get funding and to make people believe this is worse than it really is. Especially since the numbers are magnitudes less than what they were supposed to be.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: Actually, it's a very high estimate. Nearly every day there is a new report of how cases are not being counted correctly. Just one example, Washington health officials: Gunshot victims counted as COVID-19 deaths[^]
As I understood OriginalGriff, he did not at all refer to classification of deaths as Covid-related or not, but the total number of deaths, regardless of cause. If a country experiences a million deaths a year (that's within the right magnitude for GB), a figure that has been stable for many years, but when 2020 comes to an end, 1.1 million people have died, you look around to find an explanation of it.
It could be a dramatic increase in traffic deaths, or people drowning, or from the seasonal flu. But fact is that for some of these "classical" (and reliably logged) death causes, the figures have been significantly lower, due to less road traffic, less boating activity, and social distancing reducing even the annal flu.
If GB after five months have 60,000 more deaths than in the first five months of earlier years, and ascribe 40,000 of those to Covid-19, then we should search for the special circumstances causing the remaining 20,000 "extra" deaths. (Pluss some more, if GB, like many other countries, have seen a marked reduction in certain other kinds of deaths.) If it is true that the 40,000 figure is "intentionally inflated", a "correct" value would give you even more unexplained excess deaths that must be caused by something else. Or claim that the next few years, we must be prepared for 10% higher death counts as being the norm, even after the corona virus has been killed off.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I understood what he was saying. My point is the actual numbers are not right, they are too high. And once you start trying to fill in the blanks, you're just guessing, which is a different topic.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
The additional deaths are not limited to those directly killed by coronavirus. For example, do you believe that the stress caused by job loss and bankruptcies, or neglect of one's health caused by fear of going to the doctor or the hospital, have had no effect on the death rate?
I suspect that the number of deaths caused by side-effects of the measures taken to stop the plague may actually be higher than the number of deaths directly attributable to the coronavirus. For that matter, some of these deaths have yet to occur (for example, the NHS's budget will be cut because the UK's economy cannot support the current budget, leading to further deaths).
It may yet turn out that we destroyed the economy in order to save it. 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
As OriginalGriff points out: The effect of covid-19 is most clearly seen by counting the total death count in a year with covid-19, compared to the death count another year without covid-19.
Some of the excess may of course have other causes, and it is up to whoever is digging up the figures to justify the splitting of excess deaths into covid-19 caused and other-exceptional-conditions caused ones.
If you feel comfortable with tunnel vision, you could limit yourself to a few specific death causes, observing e.g. that when covid-19 was raging, there were significantly fewer deaths on the road. So if we want to reduce traffic deaths, promotong covid-19 for all it is worth might be a great strategy. Or you could point out that in Sweden, covid-19 has reduced the number of elderly people in constant need of care by a few thousand - the overall health of elderly people has improved significantly. It is the same old "lies, damned lies, and then, statistics" all over.
By looking at the totality, you are less subject to statistical manipulations.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: That is new
No, it's been like that since the start.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: No, it's been like that since the start.
Not according to the state media, Coronavirus: New laws come into force as England lockdown eases - BBC News[^]
June 1, Quote: It is now a crime to stay at someone else's home overnight, or to hold gatherings of two or more people indoors or more than six people outdoors, under new legislation.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
That's just them paraphrasing, the updates are actually making things less restrictive rather than more. The legislation used to say that you were not allowed to be somewhere you didn't live, the updates now say you can't stay overnight. Similarly the legislation used to say that no outdoor meetings were allowed (apart from same household), that has been amended to no more than six and they added that no social gatherings were allowed in private, but that was the case anyway. They had to add that because now you are allowed to be somewhere else, just not overnight, so they tightened up the bit about social gatherings in private as that scenario was previously covered in the bit that they changed to "overnight".
So before;
Can't be anywhere you don't live (so you can't have a social gathering at someone else's house)
after;
Can't stay overnight where you don't live (so now you *can* socialise at someone else's house if you don't stay overnight?)
Nope, can't have a social gathering in private at all
|
|
|
|
|
Remember that media is reliable and trustworthy when they report something that you like and agree with.
If ZurdoDev got this through media, I am sure they are of the reiliable class.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: Legally, yes it has. It was just passed on Monday. No indoors groups of 2 or more (so groups basically) unless they are from the same household. That is new.
That was actually an easing of the rules. Until Monday, there was no 'cross-household' contact allowed.
ZurdoDev wrote: I doubt it. We've had large gatherings in places and the numbers have not gone up significantly. I think most people were likely already exposed to this virus before lock downs even happened. History will laugh at us.
I think you should wait a couple of weeks (which is how long it takes for an increase to be evident), before declaring an "all clear".
Right now, I'm planning on sitting it out. Just because some people (Cummings, etc.) have been stupid, doesn't mean the rest of us should be. Although the media seems to believe that Dom taking a trip to Durham, is going to convince everyone in the country to start partying!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
