TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
162. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    31 19.14%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    55 33.95%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    51 31.48%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    5 3.09%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    20 12.35%
Page 654 of 655 FirstFirst ... 154404554604609614619624629634639644649650651652653654655 LastLast
Results 16,326 to 16,350 of 16372

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dumped! ✮✮✮

  1. #16326
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    It's like: you had one job, man... XD

  2. #16327
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    It's just ... what good is a batshit conspiracy monger connecting every line imaginable to Trump that's so completely blind to the one line that actually matters and that should be impossible to miss if you were really leaving no stone unturned?
    Their real goal, at least the goal of whoever is actually behind Q, is obfuscation, not enlightenment.

    The point is to make so many fake lines that any time anyone says anything real it gets drowned out in the mess.

  3. #16328
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Eschew obfuscation, I say!!

    It's easy to make chaos out of order but a lot of work to do the reverse. This sort of obfuscation campaign relies on the essential laziness of people. It also feeds into the distrust of academics and expertise causing the automatic dismissal of any attempt to inject facts into a discussion.

    Also this guy, Vladislav Surkov, Putin's guru of obfuscation.


    EDIT: I just wanted to bump the graphic to this page as a reference for new comers and because Dia needs push through her pain.

    Last edited by Nicker; 9th Jul 2021 at 13:48.

  4. #16329
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Sadly it doesn't even take that much to confuse people.

    For example many people (both sides) interpreted Trump having (according to poll analysis) a 1-in-3 chance to win 2016 as meaning Hillary was predicted to win by a landslide. I have to assume people get confused between "chance of winning" vs "percentage to win by". When in fact, clearly a 1 in 3 chance to win meant it was already called as being anyone's game: rolling a 5 or 6 on a D6 is hardly an unlikely outcome.

    When Hillary didn't win by a landslide they assumed that the polling must have been way off. But in fact, the polls were only out by about 1% from the actual results. A 1-in-3 chance of winning actually means it's WAY too close for them to make any sort of definite call.

    Anything with numbers and percentages or probabilities, people are shit at that. See the kerfuffle over the Monty Hall problem a few years back with many people refusing to accept it even after it being explained over and over.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 9th Jul 2021 at 14:46.

  5. #16330
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Cipheron View Post
    See the kerfuffle over the Monty Hall problem a few years back with many people refusing to accept it even after it being explained over and over.
    The Monty Hall problem, as it's usually stated, doesn't really define itself very well, and runs counter to our intuition, not of probability, but of people.

    Let's say Monty Hall wants you to lose. After all, why shouldn't he? He financially benefits if you do. So if you pick the wrong choice, he just gives it to you, done. But if you pick the right choice, well, then he goes through his little song and dance and explains to you how it's better odds if you switch. But he knows. He knows all along.

  6. #16331
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    The Monty Hall problem, as it's usually stated, doesn't really define itself very well, and runs counter to our intuition, not of probability, but of people.

    Let's say Monty Hall wants you to lose. After all, why shouldn't he? He financially benefits if you do. So if you pick the wrong choice, he just gives it to you, done. But if you pick the right choice, well, then he goes through his little song and dance and explains to you how it's better odds if you switch. But he knows. He knows all along.
    I don't agree with that. Those usual objections are based on information that's not stated in the problem. Puzzles set out the rules of the puzzle. And even when all those objections are ruled out, the people who don't get it still don't in fact get it.

    Many readers of vos Savant's column refused to believe switching is beneficial despite her explanation. After the problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine, most of them claiming vos Savant was wrong.[4] Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept that switching is the best strategy. Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating vos Savant's predicted result.
    The problem with the objections you raise is that those are all ad hoc rationalizations about why so many people are so wrong about stuff like this. If that was the case then basically no mathematicians would have fallen for the incorrect thinking, because mathematicians are used to boiling down a problem to equations and then solving for the abstract equation, so they wouldn't have gotten side-tracked by those hypothetical objection you raise: when solving mathematical word problems, mathematicians just don't think like that.

    The reason I brought this up in context of the election results is that it stems from the same issues: people have a problem separating concepts like actual odds from knowledge of the odds. In the Monty Hall case, it starts with the fiction "the car is behind any door with 1/3 chance" and they get confused when Monty opens a door, because they say the odds can't "magically" transfer between doors.

    So what's the real thinking that people get wrong? Even when we rule out Monty acting counter to the stated puzzle, they still don't accept it. The actual errant logic is probably summed up as "Monty revealing one of the booby prizes doesn't change the odds of the prize being behind either of the other doors, and since the car was behind any of the other doors with an equal chance, it's now 50/50". The rest of the stuff they say isn't that important, it comes down to that one observation: the idea that exposing one of the booby prizes shouldn't affect the other doors at all. One video of someone who did in fact test out the Monty Hall thing, but wasn't a mathematician, did seem confused about how the odds "move" and gave it a sort of quasi-mystical air to it, and seem baffled by how it could be so: how do the odds "move" between doors, as if "by magic" by just "opening a random door". That's the main objection people have.

    However, a change of perspective actually solves the dilemma. Was 33/33/33 ever true? Not once the car was placed. 100/0/0 are the "real" odds the entire game. 33/33/33 or 50/50/0 or 66/33/0 just represent different states of knowledge. 66/33/0 is in fact just a better approximation of the already-true situation of 100/0/0. So odds aren't somehow moving between the doors, what's changing is the amount of information different observers have, allowing them to better approximate the true odds (which Monty knew all along, thus could reveal information about).

    So while those objections you raised could be possible objections, those don't work in this context because you got hundreds of mathematicians still objecting to this on purely mathematical grounds, not the "Monty might not act like the problem states" grounds. So no, I don't accept the idea that if we just stated the problem in more formal terms and rule out exceptions then more people would have gotten this right. That just seems like a post-hoc rationalization to explain away why humans basically fail at being rational in the first place.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 10th Jul 2021 at 02:09.

  7. #16332
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    I think you are severely underestimating the human (and, yes, human mathematician) willingness to rationalize logic into agreeing with their intuition. Once a person feels the answer is a certain way, they will contort themselves to find a way to justify that answer. (And professionals? They're better at it.)

    Those usual objections are based on information that's not stated in the problem. Puzzles set out the rules of the puzzle.
    But it is based on statements that are in the puzzle. If they had formulated the puzzle without them, they wouldn't have had all this confusion. There isn't a Monty Hall problem without Monty Hall. It's the injection of agency that makes it unintuitive. The underlying problem is just that if you pick one of three, what are the odds that you picked the right one? That's it. What are the odds that the correct choice is the one you picked, or one of the others. But then Monty comes along. And, furthermore, the puzzle doesn't tell you that Monty had to perform that action - merely that he did. But the solution relies on the notion that Monty will always show a door and ask if you want to change - which is not stated in the puzzle. It's not a good puzzle, it's not even really a mathematical puzzle at all. It's just wrapping a simple concept in confusing baggage.

    ...I'm always reminded of the Banner Saga "dialogs" where if you select the right answer, the game gives you another dialog and encourages you to change your mind. (If you initially select a wrong answer, you just do that.)

    However, a change of perspective actually solves the dilemma.
    That's exactly why you can tell the confusion is not in the problem, but in the framing.

    Finally, when we say people are bad at probabilities, I don't think the Monty Hall problem is even an example of that, anyway. In Monty Hall, people are confused about what the probability is, not what the probability means, and it's the latter that is what we normally talk about when we describe people as bad at probability. People aren't confused about whether Hillary's chances were 2/3's or 1/2, they're confused that someone with a 2/3 chance of winning could lose at all.

  8. #16333
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    I think you are severely underestimating the human (and, yes, human mathematician) willingness to rationalize logic into agreeing with their intuition. Once a person feels the answer is a certain way, they will contort themselves to find a way to justify that answer. (And professionals? They're better at it.)
    I don't think we're in disagreement there

    And, furthermore, the puzzle doesn't tell you that Monty had to perform that action - merely that he did. But the solution relies on the notion that Monty will always show a door and ask if you want to change - which is not stated in the puzzle.
    I don't agree with this explanation. Most people who object to the solution already had that possibility ruled out, and yet they still object to the solution. That rationalization is mainly used to explain why others got the problem wrong, it's not actually part of the reasoning of anyone I've seen who actually objected to the solution: the objection you're raising is only ever used by people who do understand the problem and know the correct answer, not by people who object to the actual correct answer. That's just not the reasoning they use.

    As a side note, the Monty Hall problem is mathematically the same as the Three Prisoner's problem. And people make the same 50/50 error in logic for that. But in that one there's no possibility that The Warden doesn't reveal a name, which would be the equivalent of Monty not offering you a switch. But people make the same logic error.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Prisoners_problem

    The actual objections do generally boil down to what I said: That if you pick Door A, and then Monty reveals Door C was a booby prize, then since Door A and Door B were originally equally likely, then Door A and Door B are now 50/50 likely.

    Finally, when we say people are bad at probabilities, I don't think the Monty Hall problem is even an example of that, anyway. In Monty Hall, people are confused about what the probability is, not what the probability means, and it's the latter that is what we normally talk about when we describe people as bad at probability.
    Monty Hall shows people are pretty bad at conditional probability. And I'd argue that since I've seen many times it's been stripped down to the bare essentials yet people keep insisting on the same mistake.

    The issue is that the order of the doors opening and which doors Monty can and can't open are all conditional probabilities, but people are treating them as if they're random independent events. How they actually rationalize it really does boil down to two ideas: (1) opening a random door doesn't change where the car is, and (2) each of the two remaining doors wasn't any more probable than the other one to start with. So they think they're being extra-clever by going against the given explanation: you can't trick them with your sleight of hand, nothing actually changed. As for the assertion that they're merely confused about what the probability "is" and not what it "means". I think that doesn't really boil down whatever you're trying to say. Because of preconceptions, their comprehension of the full scenario is lacking insight, which says plenty about not getting the meaning already. And if a lot of people can't get it for a toy problem like this you can bet they're not getting it for complex real-world phenomena.

    People aren't confused about whether Hillary's chances were 2/3's or 1/2, they're confused that someone with a 2/3 chance of winning could lose at all.
    Well another way to state that is that they confused a 66% chance with a 100% chance: they've confused something that's just more likely with a certainty. So re-stating it like that hasn't actually improved things.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 10th Jul 2021 at 05:05.

  9. #16334
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Cipheron View Post
    I don't think we're in disagreement there
    Really? 'Cause disagreeing with that formed the core of your last argument: "...basically no mathematicians would have fallen for the incorrect thinking..."

    Most people who object to the solution already had that possibility ruled out, and yet they still object to the solution.
    Because the objection doesn't initiate rationally in the first place. They've already chosen their side before they get that far.

    That rationalization is mainly used to explain why others got the problem wrong, it's not actually part of the reasoning of anyone I've seen who actually objected to the solution: the objection you're raising is only ever used by people who do understand the problem and know the correct answer, not by people who object to the actual correct answer. That's just not the reasoning they use.
    Okay, two things: (1) That's not a part of my argument in the first place, I'm talking about what makes it unintuitive and drives rationalization, and (2) It absolutely is key to the arguments they're presenting, anyway; their analysis always hinges on Monty's behavior not being what it is, even though they expressly reject that in their formulation. Their formulations don't work if Monty acts as he's supposed to - but do work if he didn't.

    But in that one there's no possibility that The Warden doesn't reveal a name, which would be the equivalent of Monty not offering you a switch.
    That's clearly a better formulation and I expect fewer people would get it wrong, but it's still subject to assumptions about the Warden's state of mind, and I don't see why the Warden couldn't have chosen to not reveal a name.

    The issue is that the order of the doors opening and which doors Monty can and can't open are all conditional probabilities...
    It's worth noting that that is absolutely not stated in the Monty Hall problem in the first place. Let's posit Marley. Marley doesn't intentionally pick a goat. Marley doesn't know which door has which prize. Marley's just a guest, and picks one of the other two doors completely at random. And Marley just happened to pick a goat. Now, is it better to switch? No, now it's the exact same probability. Monty's knowledge and state of mind in picking are absolutely crucial to getting the right answer and are not stated in the problem at all.

    EDIT: Depressing fact: Between the 3 possible prize locations, the 3 possible original choices, and the coin flip, there's a grand total of just 18 equally-likely possibilities for any of these scenarios. Real easy to work out by hand in just a few minutes.
    Last edited by Pyrian; 10th Jul 2021 at 05:15.

  10. #16335
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    Really? 'Cause disagreeing with that formed the core of your last argument: "...basically no mathematicians would have fallen for the incorrect thinking..."
    My point was that even when stripped of the semantics, many people still object to the problem-as-stated. So the given reasoning for why people get it wrong doesn't stand up.

    Because the objection doesn't initiate rationally in the first place. They've already chosen their side before they get that far.

    Okay, two things: (1) That's not a part of my argument in the first place, I'm talking about what makes it unintuitive and drives rationalization, and (2) It absolutely is key to the arguments they're presenting, anyway; their analysis always hinges on Monty's behavior not being what it is, even though they expressly reject that in their formulation. Their formulations don't work if Monty acts as he's supposed to - but do work if he didn't.
    It still doesn't. Say Monty only offers the switch if you initially chose the car. In that scenario, switching always gives you a 0% chance. Or, say Monty only offers the switch if you picked a goat. In that scenario, switching always gives you a 100% chance. Yet these aren't answers that any of the nay-sayers give. That basically proves right there that these people are not in fact processing other alternatives in the first place. The logical answers, given a "motivated" Monty, are either 100% or 0%. 50% doesn't even come into it.

    To get 50% you have to assume Monty acts entirely at random or randomizes what he does some way. You don't get 50% from Monty changing what he does based on your first pick. Like I said those give 0% or 100%, but when was the last time anyone used that reasoning? So the only way 50% makes sense is if you consider that Monty just yanks some door open at random and there's a 1-game-in-3 chance it's the car, so we've excluded those games from our possibility set, leaving you with three equal scenarios: 1/3 win on switch, 1/3 lose on switch, 1/3 lose because Monty fucked up. But this is clearly not a line of reasoning the vast majority of people are using when they get to 50%.

    It's a case of a broken clock being right twice a day: basically any trick that randomizes Monty's actions just happens to also give the answer of 50%. This is, basically by coincidence the same as the wrong answer, which is also 50%. Any time you assume Monty knows what the fuck he's actually doing you get a different answer.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 10th Jul 2021 at 07:29.

  11. #16336
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2005
    Location: Not Kansas
    You're so thoughtful, Nicker. lol

  12. #16337
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    The Slate unexpectedly finds some agreement with a recent Washington Post opinion piece about treating Lord Dampnut's supporters nicely and finding common ground with them.

    https://slate.com/culture/2021/07/st...at-advice.html

    "Criticizing people for supporting Donald Trump is how we got Donald Trump, according to people who supported Donald Trump and dislike being criticized."

    [...]
    As we all come together to clean up the mess that some of us deliberately caused, it’s clear that insults will get us nowhere. Calling Trump voters “dumber than a bag of hammers” only reveals that you are unserious about moving forward as a country. Going on to clarify that you meant to say that Trump voters were “to a person, dumber than the dumbest bag of hammers at a hammer store that used to specialize in selling extremely dumb hammers before the health department shut it down for selling bags of hammers that were so dumb it was against the law” will do very little to reach across the political chasm. It may feel good to insult the people whose stupidity, hatred, and fear caused untold suffering all over the world. It may feel great. It may feel like sitting on the porch and taking your first sip of an ice cold beer after a hot day, or finding a $20 bill in your coat pocket, or seeing the face of an old friend who’s been gone for a long time. It may feel so, so great. But consider this: Don’t?[...]

  13. #16338
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    The problem is that's NOT an insult, it's the reality when you exit the post-truth world for a second

    On the other hand, where are going the QAnonists now?

  14. #16339
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    I mean... They're not going anywhere yet. I wonder if we'll even see Trump re-nominated for 2028?

  15. #16340
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    I mean... They're not going anywhere yet. I wonder if we'll even see Trump re-nominated for 2028?
    As for where they are now, it seems to be morphing into more general Covid conspiracy theories and more along the sovereign citizen lines. Just like they were able to shed previous "prediction" failures by merely moving past them, they've just done the same thing for Trump's loss. The whole election conspiracy theory served an important psychological bridge for that, since they could focus on that instead of having to think about how Trump's loss didn't fit the "The Plan" for "The Cabal". So election conspiracies serve a very important distraction for the Q horde.

    this one was a good read:
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...pporter-503295
    I was radicalized overnight. I went to bed as a liberal, a die-hard Bernie Sanders supporter, social activist and a feminist. The next morning, I left the bed viewing Donald Trump — a man whom I had utterly despised — as a hero fighting a war against the Deep State. In the ensuing days my fiancé Dave would hardly recognize me, and our relationship would nearly be destroyed.
    ...
    Dave wasn’t handling the stay-at-home order well either: Without the ability to take extended weekends away to unwind from his demanding job, he became depressed and increasingly short-tempered. The more he let his anger leak out and at times explode toward me, the more I felt trapped inside the house and desperate for something to change.

    It was after a day of his angry outbursts when I discovered QAnon. That night, Dave was asleep and I lay awake buzzing with stress. Tired of staring at the ceiling, I decided to watch the “Fall Cabal” YouTube series a friend of mine had told me about. “It’s really weird. I’d love to get your opinion on it,” she messaged me a few days before along with a link. The 10 episodes wove together a narrative about “The Cabal,” supposedly a secret and satanic pedophile ring run by members of the liberal elite, and Trump’s secret fight to overthrow them. I didn’t sleep at all that night. Instead, I found dozens of articles and videos confirming my new political views. By the morning, I was a true believer.
    ...
    Initially, believing in Q felt amazing, like being in some sort of mystical state or euphoria. For about six weeks, my fears about impending doom because of Covid-19, climate change and what I perceived as the threat of fascism were gone. The world felt safe and I felt energized, confident, creative and brimming with love. I’m not religious, but I kept thinking “Thank you, God. Thank you, God. Thank you, God.” I heard “Amazing Grace” playing in my mind. I was so relieved to stop hating Trump, whom I used to see as racist, sexist and a Hitler-wannabe.
    ...
    But Dave didn’t want to lose me. He agreed to learn anger management techniques and to watch “Fall Cabal.” He thought the series was full of crap, and tried to talk me out of my new beliefs. The more he tried, though, the less safe I felt in his presence and the more I turned to my rapidly growing community of QAnon friends.
    ...
    Dave had persuaded me not to post about politics on Facebook while I was following Q, but a few times I couldn't help myself and I did end up losing friends. One of my old friends even called Dave and passionately tried to persuade him to leave me. A half dozen others told him, “I wouldn’t blame you for leaving her.” I was astonished — I had done nothing bad and yet people were so antagonistic towards me. The more someone tried to push me to “wake up” and the more they engaged in name-calling, the deeper I went into QAnon, finding solace in the community of like-minded people with whom I had a shared reality.
    ...
    It took me about five months to start suspecting something was off. No promised changes came — Q-followers believed that John F. Kennedy Jr. was alive and secretly working with Trump to overthrow the Cabal, but he never showed up. I started to doubt the “QAnon intel” I was reading. According to the community, “The Storm,” a mass arrest of politicians alleged to be in the Cabal, happened three separate times during the pandemic. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and others were supposedly arrested for crimes against humanity, a few times each. I thought, “These stories must be lying. They can’t be arrested again and again.” Then Trump lost the election and it made me question the conspiracy further — his loss was not part of “The Plan.”
    So that's a thing: often radicals of one end flip to being radicals of the other end, instead of ending up in the middle. note how she said her fear of Trump being a fascist went away when she got indoctrinated into QAnon's Trump-the-hero thing: what she actually discovered is what becoming one of the fascists feels like: the cognitive dissonance went away.

    Another thought is that she probably never had very good critical thinking skill to begin with. She should have been skeptical the *first time* the QAnon intel told her that Obama and Clinton were arrested, but instead she started having doubts merely because it happened three+ times. I've met blitheringly stupid people from both ends of the political spectrum. Merely being a hardline lefty doesn't actually mean someone is smart enough to dissect the stuff they're reading. I have an ex-girlfriend who's a lefty and into all that witchcraft stuff and she's ... dumb as rocks.
    ---

    In other sadder QAnon news, a QAnon believer violently murdered his own 2 little kids because he believed they had reptilian DNA: save your kids from The Cabal by merely killing them yourself.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 9th Sep 2021 at 01:49.

  16. #16341
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by Cipheron View Post
    a QAnon believer violently murdered his own 2 little kids because he believed they had reptilian DNA
    :|

    https://www.npr.org/2021/08/13/10271...=1631179924052

    +

    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...l-riot-charges

    It is imperative that patience and compassion be accorded those, who like Mr. Chansley, were non-violent, peaceful and possessed of genuine mental health issues which rendered them more vulnerable to the propaganda of the day but who, at the end of day, seek to be accountable for their actions.

    LOL, are there "non genuine" MENTAL ISSUES?
    Last edited by lowenz; 9th Sep 2021 at 05:46.

  17. #16342
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    About ivermectin:

    https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvz4...ure-ivermectin


    “I called Amita Resurrection Hospital and spoke with a male care provider in ICU. I gave him Veronica’s name and stated that she had a legal right to try Ivermectin. He informed me that Ivermectin was not on the Amita protocol and Veronica would not receive it. When I tried to respond, he was rude, talked over me, and hung up on me,” Wood wrote on Telegram Tuesday evening.

    Wood then urged his followers to “let your voices be heard,” calling the situation “medical tyranny. This is genocide. We cannot tolerate crimes against humanity.”


    These guys are completely mad and/or completely dangerous, only able to turn upside down the classic "leftist" arguments. And their goal is precisely that, to pervert "left" buzzwords and schemes to make them some pseudo-anarchist/libertarian propaganda tool for the "real" (GOP) Right. You know: Moldbug (Curtis Yarvin), Land, Bannon, these guys.....the "patriots".
    What a bunch of insidious lunatics devoted to engagement strategies.
    Last edited by lowenz; 9th Sep 2021 at 06:21.

  18. #16343
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Quote Originally Posted by lowenz View Post
    These guys are completely mad and/or completely dangerous, only able to turn upside down the classic "leftist" arguments. And their goal is precisely that, to pervert "left" buzzwords and schemes to make them some pseudo-anarchist/libertarian propaganda tool for the "real" (GOP) Right. You know: Moldbug (Curtis Yarvin), Land, Bannon, these guys.....the "patriots".
    What a bunch of insidious lunatics devoted to engagement strategies.
    It's always going to be hard to parse.

    On one hand, they don't trust mainstream medicine and equate vaccines to irresponsible medical experiments, then in the next breath they're screaming that the doctors have to inject patients with any old random crap that happens to be lying around that we haven't tried yet. So ... they don't trust the clinical studies for vaccines so just start injecting random stuff to see if it works? Good logic.

    But I get what you're saying about the language there too: tyranny, genocide and crimes against humanity because the doctors won't inject random untested shit into their patient.

    BTW meed Canada's new queen of the Anons: Romana Didulo
    https://podbay.fm/p/qanon-anonymous/e/1630711497

    She's claiming to be the new actual ruler (queen) of Canada and that there's going to be a Storm situation there, promising widespread executions including of business owners who require people to weak masks. She's promised to execute 2.7 million Canadians. She has a lot of followers online now, and it's leaking into the real world, and any time she says she's going to murder people, they all cheer. That's how fascism starts.

    So that's the right wing: promise actual genocide and you're the hero now.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 9th Sep 2021 at 06:55.

  19. #16344
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    I'm italian and I can say (being a "leftist" by far-right wingers standard) that "genuine" Fascism has never gone so far with "execution" claims and fantasies (when in power, years after the end of the first WW and its old veterans lunacy/PTSD )
    Real fascists were bad but not totally insane like these guys.
    These guys are plain bat shit crazy (see Bannon and his Breitbart "patriots").

  20. #16345
    Member
    Registered: May 2003
    Location: Minecraft
    Quote Originally Posted by lowenz View Post
    LOL, are there "non genuine" MENTAL ISSUES?
    There's more than a few youtuber/twitch streamers/people of the internets who encourage their viewers to self-diagnose mental conditions and then see a series of doctors until they find one that will confirm what they've already concluded. That or abandon established medical routes and self-treat for their self-diagnosis. It's not hard to find people touting their self-diagnosis as some kind of badge of honour on their various social media profiles.

    It's difficult to say how many of these are legit as I'm sure most haven't seen a professional at all, but could still have some kind of mental illness, but it does rather undermine those who havelegitimate mental conditions as people start becoming sceptical due to all the self-diagnosis rubbish.

    I mean, sure, if you suspect you have some kind of mental condition, look up the symptoms and seek professional advice, but you shouldn't go to a doctor with a diagnosis and expect confirmation.

  21. #16346
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Don't know where to really put it, so I'll just drop it here in the garbage thread.

    Eat you heart out, Black Mirror!

    https://deadline.com/2021/09/usher-p...bs-1234829647/

    [...]
    The Activist is a competition series that features six inspiring activists teamed with three high-profile public figures working together to bring meaningful change to one of three vitally important world causes: health, education, and environment.

    Activists go head-to-head in challenges to promote their causes, with their success measured via online engagement, social metrics, and hosts’ input. The three teams have one ultimate goal: to create impactful movements that amplify their message, drive action, and advance them to the G20 Summit in Rome, Italy. There, they will meet with world leaders in the hope of securing funding and awareness for their causes. The team that receives the largest commitment is celebrated as the overall winner at the finale, which will also feature musical performances by some of the world’s most passionate artists.

    [...]

    “The Activist is a first-of-its-kind competition series that will inspire real change, as the series progresses from the United States to Rome for the Activists’ final challenge at the G20,” said Hugh Evans, CEO and co-founder of Global Citizen. “The audience will see the Activists’ passion and commitment for their causes tested as they petition world leaders to take urgent action to resolve the interconnected crises we face.”
    [...]

  22. #16347
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: The Plateaux Of Mirror
    That is the funniest thing I've read in a long long time, my god.

  23. #16348
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Survivor was the ruination of television...

  24. #16349
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    The network is probably lapping up the criticism: that's a lot of free publicity.

    In other news conservative talk show host Bob Enyart, who won a lawsuit against Covid restrictions, dies of Covid
    https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/14/m...vid/index.html

    Conservative radio host Pastor Robert "Bob" Enyart, who swore off Covid-19 vaccines, has died from complications due to the virus, his co-host announced on social media Monday.

    "It comes with an extremely heavy heart that my close friend and co-host of Real Science Radio has lost his battle with Covid," said co-host Fred Williams on Facebook.

    In October, Enyart won a lawsuit against the state of Colorado over its Covid-19 restrictions, CNN has reported.
    ...
    Enyart is one of several conservative radio hosts who passed away recently from Covid-19 complications after complaining about masks and expressing skepticism about vaccines. Dick Farrel, a Florida-based talk radio host, passed away from the coronavirus in August, as did Nashville-based host Phil Valentine, who 65 when he died. Marc Bernier, another Florida-based conservative radio host and an outspoken opponent of masking and vaccines, also died of Covid-19 last month.
    In a way you can at least respect that. These at least aren't like those Republican politicians who made sure they, their families, and their top political donors all got priority access to the vaccines, while pandering to vaccine skepticism for their supporter base, like Republican Governor Ron DeSantis did.

    https://joemduncan.medium.com/did-fl...e-ca07086b2bc0

    Several weeks ago, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis came under fire for allegedly giving early vaccine privileges to wealthy donors. The scandal divided the state in comment threads on social media platforms, with Republican voters shrugging off the accusations and Democratic voters taking issue with it. One such person involved in the accusations is former Illinois governor Bruce Rauner, a Republican who donated $250,000 to Ron DeSantis.

    The donations came only about a month after his community received thousands of vaccines, enough for 1,200 residents of the affluent area of Key Largo. As this all unfolded, Floridians in other areas struggled to get their hands on vaccines, with long waiting lines at grocery stores like Publix and other vaccine sites, like CVS and other pharmacies. Even now, Publix will receive 1 out of every 4 vaccine doses, reports the Tampa Bay Times, but the state has no idea where the doses will go.

    But Bruce Rauner wasn’t the only person to make a hefty donation to DeSantis after his area, the Ocean Reef Club, received an abundance of vaccine doses. More than a dozen people so far are also believed to have given DeSantis massive donations right after the club was given its doses.
    https://crooksandliars.com/2021/09/r...vaccines-alter

    Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has turned Florida into a hotbed of Covid infections, stood and nodded as Darris Friend claimed vaccines alter your RNA during a press conference, without so much as a correction or clarification.

    "The vaccine changes your RNA so for me that's a problem," Friend said. DeSantis stood there looking on, nodding and saying nothing.
    That's the state of the Republican party now. An anti-vaxx nutjob takes over the podium, and Ron DeSantis one of the most powerful people in the Republican party just lets this guy fire off pure misinformation to his supporter base. Meanwhile behind closed doors he's passing out the vaccines to the rich faithful with deep pockets.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 15th Sep 2021 at 11:49.

  25. #16350
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    There's been quite a few of these. There was that lady who would put on a carnival mask covering her eyes and go harass shop employees and a fair number of right-wing reactionaries and other assorted anti-vax/conspiracy theorist/qanon/pro-pandemic figures. It's really a death cult in the very literal sense of the word.

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...bxu-story.html
    https://www.vice.com/en/article/93yj...ed-functioning
    https://news.yahoo.com/least-6-conse...181500159.html

    Last edited by Starker; 15th Sep 2021 at 12:00.

Page 654 of 655 FirstFirst ... 154404554604609614619624629634639644649650651652653654655 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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