|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:I eagerly await the inevitable anti-vaxxer-esque conspiracy that says that modern diagnostic tools create more disease. You never saw the big hub-bub about how looking for breast cancer causes* breast cancer, did you? I can't find the specific natural news comic I was looking for, so here's one that's close:  * Turns out people who check themselves for cancer are more likely to find they have cancer than people who don't check themselves!
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:12 |
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Can somebody find a dumb email forward or post to end this nonsense? It's got a pre-baked-in response but:  "Parents promote in the upbringing of their children certain principles and values over others that impacts them" is actually a point worth remembering. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Yes, back on topic once again. Edit: I actually went hunting for that one, following who a friend of mine shared things from, and I've found a rich vein of crazy. 
borkencode fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
I like the contrast of a competent photoshop with the insane jpeg artifacts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I like the contrast of a competent photoshop with the insane jpeg artifacts. It's probably because the photoshop has been used for every president since Carter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
borkencode posted:Yes, back on topic once again. I wish the God-rich would use their billions to make hilarious stuff like this golf course-carrier instead of hoarding it or using it to buy out the media so they can make life worse for everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Is it wrong that I would like it better if our aircraft carriers were just gigantic golf course luxury vessels?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
It actually looks really cool and I'm not really into golf.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
I honestly thought I was looking at a row of colored pencils.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
"Goddamn water hazards, this course is horseshit!" Obama said as he threw his clubs and golf bag off the side of the carrier and stormed off. The young sailor left standing on the green was speechless. "Join the Navy," the recruiter had told him, "see the world!" No one told him he'd be spending his tour on a floating miniature golf course serving as a glorified caddy. At night he drank and wondered silently if all this was worth the dwindling benefits for enlisted men. He could've gone to college to study as a physicist, maybe even gotten a job at NASA right out of college. At least they spent their days trying to make Moon Tennis a reality. The young man sighed and made his way towards the stern, looking to see if he could find the golf bag floating in the ocean. "Welcome to Obama's America," he muttered under his breath.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This happened several times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:01
|
|
Interlude posted:Yeah, but now they're using all that fancy gear to kick in doors to serve drug warrants so whatever the initial excuse was, it's just a power grab now. Who are they, what power are they grabbing, why are you resurrecting this?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:From the same blog: Just want to point out that this is literally a tale from Aesop's Fables with very slight changes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The infographic is dumb, but it's also dumb to behave as though there's something worth saving in the dregs of clinical psychiatric practice. It's profoundly unethical to prescribe mind-altering medications to kids who in many cases are reacting in perfectly healthy ways to real changes in their lives (abuse, neglect, homelessness, LGBT targeting etc). Oh I remember, you are the Mr "alternative" paths to knowledge guy from the evolution thread. Honestly if there is a problem when it comes to diagnosis of development disorders in children it's an under diagnosis not over. My 10 year old son has been talking about killing himself since he was about 6, that's not reacting in a "perfectly healthy way to real changes" that's a serious neurological disorder. He's been diagnosed with ADHD, Aspergers and P.A.N.D.A.S by actual psychiatric professionals. Now admittedly the diagnosis can be a bit fluid because you have a lot of overlapping symptoms in the various disorders and treatment is in large part trial and error because the science is relatively new. I've been called into school because he told them I was going to "stab him in the stomach", We're getting a visit tomorrow night because he threatened to kill himself at school to see if there is anything they can do to help us. Now that I'm familiar with the symptoms and behaviors I'm pretty good at spotting other kids with similar challenges, and I've seen many cases where parents resist diagnosis and medication because of this whole "just kids being kids" nonsense. Hell I myself was a hard sell on the idea to begin with and I actually was diagnosed with ADHD (they just called it ADD back then) over 30 years ago. For example our Nanny's son most certainly has something that requires professional help but they're resistant to the idea because of the stigma and people who insist in their ignorance that these disorders aren't a real thing and are instead trying to treat him with homeopathic junk science remedies rather than actual scientifically tested medicines that might actually do something beneficial. We saw the same thing with one of his school friends a girl who undoubtedly has some issues that she needs help with. And of course there are all the morons who link stuff like the picture that started this particular tangent. The problem we have in this country (planet honestly) isn't over-diagnosing developmental and mental health disorders but people who try to pretend that it's just some made up problem. Because it's a very real loving thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Did you not see the part where I said "in many cases"? Obviously there are always going to be people with severe mental health issues who need serious intervention. I'm really sorry to hear about the struggles you and your son have been having. Buuut honestly the fact that he has been diagnosed as having three completely different disorders, all three subject to confirmation bias and one (PANDAS) with a body of research operating at the very edge of recognition and credibility should let you know that the utter subjectivity of clinical practice is real. Nobody said that mental health disorders aren't real, but you yourself are saying that their diagnosis can be very dodgy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Who are they, what power are they grabbing, why are you resurrecting this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
I'd like you to back up your statements with citations, yes, that would be nice. Demonstrate their power grab.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Literally the only thing stopping all of the police from being 100% militarized is the possibility that some homeowner might keep a pistol in their nightstand. That's common knowledge. Like, duh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
No gently caress you, the first thing I do when I become President will be to order this poo poo built, son. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'd like you to back up your statements with citations, yes, that would be nice. Demonstrate their power grab. https://www.aclu.org/militarization quote:The police officers on our streets and in our neighborhoods are not soldiers fighting a war. Yet many have been armed with tactics and weapons designed for battle overseas. The result: people – disproportionately those in poor communities and communities of color – have become targets for violent SWAT raids, often because the police suspect they have small amounts of drugs in their homes. http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610392116 quote:Today’s armored-up policemen are a far cry from the constables of early America. The unrest of the 1960s brought about the invention of the SWAT unit—which in turn led to the debut of military tactics in the ranks of police officers. Nixon’s War on Drugs, Reagan’s War on Poverty, Clinton’s COPS program, the post–9/11 security state under Bush and Obama: by degrees, each of these innovations expanded and empowered police forces, always at the expense of civil liberties. And these are just four among a slew of reckless programs. This map is amusing: http://www.cato.org/raidmap
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
If your best sources are the ACLU, Balko and Cato (through a map from Balko), you have a problem. If you think heavier weaponry and equipment by police represents a "power grab", and that you can unequivocally sum it up as such without any further support or explanation in a one-sentence reply post, you have a deeper problem- that the idea is controversial, even on the left. The ACLU and Cato sources (no, I'm not giving Balko money to develop a response) still don't address the problem of the availability of stronger weaponry to citizens. None of your quotes actually give reasons to support your thesis- that the "militarization" of the police represents a power grab, through drug busts. The real tragedy here is that there's a good argument one can make about the overuse and expansion of heavy weapons and equipment by police. You could begin by avoiding the loaded term "militarization", and then explore what rationales or circumstances distinguish the heavily equipped municipalities from the ones that haven't done so. That would let you tease out the mismatches or distortions that leave APCs in one horse towns. Because you frame the issue as binary, though, and because you treat law enforcement as a monolithic, oppressive force, you are prevented from demonstrating or articulating support for such an argument. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:00
|
|
Interlude posted:If you have better sources, or ones that come to different conclusions, I'd be happy to read them. Interlude posted:It's not controversial for police to have weapons at least on par with criminals. Still, the primary use of heavily-armed SWAT teams these days is to serve drug warrants, sometimes with disastrous results. The rationale usually provided for the police to use SWAT on drug warrants is because it's a setting where they are likely to have to deal with armed suspects, and they have the opportunity to diminish the risk of getting shot. Notice, though, that this last point can be attacked with statistical evidence. Provide some, and you'll be beginning to formulate an effective argument against the use of SWAT in certain setting, based on a harms calculus. You'll still be presenting a much narrower claim than that the "militarization" of the police represents a power grab. As it stands, this has the makings of a powerful forwarded email unto itself. The Military Police are planning a Power Grab: Read This Book to see how the War on Drugs is part of a Government plan to SEIZE our Liberties! Let's work on making this something more substantive. It sounds like you have the Balko book. Locate the statistics Balko uses on warrant service fatalities, and use the original sources for them when you're presenting this argument. Avoid using rhetorically laden language, especially when introducing the issue. Don't ever use opinion journalism pieces as direct citations, always use the sources of their information- it's what the truth of your assertion lives and dies by. These changes will make your argument more effective when you're presenting it before a neutral audience. It will also make sure that your asserted claim is clear and matches its supporting evidence. Most importantly of all, don't assume the audience is already in your camp! If I agreed with you on this issue, then you wouldn't need to reply correcting me! If I don't agree with you, then a one sentence response with no explanation isn't going to win me over- and it will make you look illiterate to undecided observers. To avoid coming across as too much of a derail, I should note that all of this is true when responding to crazy facebook posts, too. For every partisan commenter there is also going to be someone watching who hasn't made up their mind. Frequently they are your best target audience, because the person who posts the meme isn't likely to respond meaningfully- too much of their identity is wrapped up in the message. Even if you think I'm crazy to disagree with you on this, starting off with a citation to Cato makes sure that part of our audience thinks you're crazy too. vvvvv I'm not calling him out, and it wasn't anywhere near bad enough to be a shitpost. If I thought there wasn't a good argument in there I wouldn't respond. One of the main things we can get from this thread is how to respond to bad arguments in a way that raises the level of discourse. I do my best to practice what I preach, content-free red title notwithstanding. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
 Discendo Vox is calling someone out on shitposting
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Plom Bar posted:I honestly thought I was looking at a row of colored pencils. Cool product idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
Plom Bar posted:I honestly thought I was looking at a row of colored pencils. Same here. It didn't quite sync up until I read your post. I was thinking why the gently caress would you stick pencils under someone's skin? I don't even know what to say about this one:  Link in the image.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Cowboy, n: a Yale-educated businessman son of a wealthy man
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
I'm gonna paint a target on my back and say something nice about Bush: In the direct wake of 9/11, he did seem to try his best on convincing the country that Muslims weren't to blame (just the way more nebulous "terrorists"). Certainly not the cowboy 'yeehaw bomb mecca into dust' persona that a lot conservatives like to project onto him. The person who made this macro might not think Bush hosed up, but Bush does. There's a reason he basically vanished the public eye the nanosecond he stopped being president.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 05:39
|
|
hamster_style posted:
Oh, you've been given a goldmine, friend. Some selections from their about page: Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Before leaving our page, we hope you learn at least 1 of these 10 things: The cut material are less egregious, but it looks to be free-ranging conspiracy theory couched in the language of vague alternative medicine leftism. Lots of "consciousness", "awakening", and a general sense that wealthy people are evil, but not for any specific single thing or way. The web design is nice though  . Maybe make sure your friend isn't sending it to you as a joke?As an added bonus, the linked video is from Russia Today. You've also struck a vein: another L101 site. This appears to be an effort at crowdsourcing conservative means via caption contests. freakindemwits.com is dead, but I think it was a precursor. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
quote:8. You know that the endgame is one-world control of planet Earth: Once you understand that the endgame for the ruling elite is to have complete control of all vital facets of society through a global government, one-world currency, international armed forces, and so on, it is simple to see through the lies and propaganda surrounding even the most confusing world events. You will never go back to sleep when you fully accept this reality. Why is it always a one world currency? Literally no one (except buttcoiners I guess) actually want a single worldwide currency. Besides not actually giving you any special power it also just a terrible idea. Look at the Euro and that's only 18 countries and change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:Why is it always a one world currency? Literally no one (except buttcoiners I guess) actually want a single worldwide currency. Besides not actually giving you any special power it also just a terrible idea. Look at the Euro and that's only 18 countries and change. It would be unwieldy, certainly, but I've never really gotten how a one world currency is supposed to be menacing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
I think for most of these people a unified currency or a US/Canada/Mexico group like the EU is scary because America is special and strong and we are so unlike these other countries that we deserve our own everything
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:It would be unwieldy, certainly, but I've never really gotten how a one world currency is supposed to be menacing. Greece, Ireland, Spain, and Portugal wouldn't have had the problems they had if they still had their own currencies OR if the Eurozone was a single budgetary entity. The only reason Alabama isn't constantly on the brink of bankruptcy is that they get a ton of federal funds. If you don't give a poor country (or state or region or whatever) either control of its own currency OR funding from outside, it will be hosed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:It would be unwieldy, certainly, but I've never really gotten how a one world currency is supposed to be menacing. We don't have anywhere near the supply or legislative infrastructure ability for a global state. So a global currency gives you two choices: 1) Every state can print the currency. Printing a currency is necessary to combat a recession by inflating your currency to death, causing huge amounts of exports and an influx of useful currency. It boosts trade very quickly and allows you to recover, this is basically the "deal with it" option of working with a recession. It's succesful, but is flawed because your currency is going to go into the absolute shitter every time any individual state has any economic event happen. In unstable areas, these happen a lot. As a result, you'd see a near-constant hyperinflation leading to physical currency being useless and constant price shifts. Imagine pre-Nazi Germany, except globally. 2) Select economically viable states can print the currency. The Eurozone model. Economic downturn? gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
Uh, guys, I was just trying to make light of the conspiracy theorists there. I'm not actually suggesting we make a one world currency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Cowboy, n: a Yale-educated businessman son of a wealthy man The image makes it clear that all cowboys are fictional characters who obey an imaginary code of chivalry. In 50 years the same image will exist asking why the President is a communist instead of a Jedi.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
A cowboy always wins and gets his man. Really? They went there, of all places?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
This is especially funny when you know that easily half or more of the actual cattle workers in Texas in those days were natively-Mexican Tejanos. It's frightening how willing these people are to deify made up bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:12 |
|
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:Why is it always a one world currency? Literally no one (except buttcoiners I guess) actually want a single worldwide currency. Besides not actually giving you any special power it also just a terrible idea. Look at the Euro and that's only 18 countries and change. Thanks to the marriage of the John Birch Society to Christian Millennialism, a unified world currency is often a leading candidate for the Mark of the Beast (in the Revelation of John it describes the Mark as being required in order to buy or sell goods). Remember, the Left Behind series was intended as a realistic depiction of future events that the authors insist will actually occur. Even if nobody actually wants it, the Anti-Christ will do it for some reason because he has to cross everything off the checklist before Jesus can come back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 09:45
|
|
